Groundbreaking US Supreme Court Decision on the Tenth and Ninth Amendment

Your thread made my day! Star for you!
May we continue to turn this country back towards freedom and prosperity...

reply to post by Habit4ming


I hope so, but as I said in another post:

The closer we get to the finish line, the harder the journey will become. It is always darkest before the dawn. Paradoxically, those who have lived their lives desiring to only be of service to others still encounter resistance to the accomplishment of that goal by the self centered.

There will always be those who step over dollars to save dimes. There will always be those screaming ME, ME, ME that physically stand in the way of actually achieving what they are screaming for...

Everything is circular. That is the secret. Good/bad, Right/wrong, love/hate...

But it does at least appear that we are making some headway, though that may be the greatest deception of all.

"There are none so hopelessly enslaved, than those who falsely believe themselves to be free"

reply to post by TupacShakur


I 'll bet the Roberts didn't think about that one. Now people can sue the fed for busting medical mj businesses who are following state laws.

I'll bet there are going to be a whole lot of these cases filed soon.

reply to post by Lono1


Not really that groundbreaking (said the lawyer). It's a criminal matter which has higher scrutiny. It did nothing about the requirement of a "particular injury" and left that intact. It was a very narrow ruling of permitting a 10th Amendment argument where the other elements of "standing" are present.

It is not some wild open door to challenging the Government on health care or taxes. There is not suddenly going to be permitted some new raft of lawsuits.

I read the opinion and it is a narrow ruling.. Don't be fooled into thinking you've suddenly obtained more power as a citizen. And for those of you that think SCOTUS and it's Conservative majority is EVER going to balkanize the U.S. and give the states power over the Feds ... get a clue. They will never give up control over you. Stop playing the useful idiot and stop arguing about issues that mean nothing.

I know this may be off topic but could someone explain to me why socialism is so bad? I'm British yet people say Britain is a socialist society because we have institutions like the NHS. To my mind, it's a good thing. People get healthcare and never have the need to worry they'd have to sell their house to live because of smallprint in insurance policies. It's why we pay national health (social security I believe).

Saying that, I guess you don't miss it if it's always been there.

Once again, sorry if this is offtopic.

18 U. S. C. §229, which forbids knowing possession or use, for nonpeaceful purposes, of a chemical that “can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans,” §§229(a); 229F(1); (7); (8), and which is part of a federal Act implementing a chemical weapons treaty ratified by the United States.

So what did she do, put hotsauce on someones doorknob or something? If you can get in trouble over that and they link you to violating a chemical weapons treaty, that law needs changing.

reply to post by Scytherius


So what you're trying to say is that this does NOT set a precedent and any attempt to try to change the status quo won't be any good? You seem to be either a pessimist or a defeatist with that sort of attitude. At the very least, this is a step in the right direction. Baby steps my friend.

Was this a test-case of sorts, to test the viability of charging citizens with what amounts to terrorism for generic criminal acts? Were they trying to make it an act of international terrorism to use common household chemicals for anything other than their "intended" purpose? Were they trying to establish a precedent that would make a potential terrorist of every American who keeps a bottle of bleach and ammonia under the kitchen sink? Sounds a little far-fetched maybe, a bit of a stretch? Maybe about as much as charging this woman under Federal an international chemical weapons laws in the first place.

source

reply to post by existenz

So, explain to me why so many British actors and actresses have such 'great' teeth?
Your own Margaret Thacher said, forgive me if this is not exact, "Socialism is great until you run out of other people's money." That is exactly the point.
People have come to the conclusion that everyone, regardless of means, should have full healthcare - and not pay for it on their own. Why is it just healthcare? I need a good diet also, don't I? I need a place to live, don't I? Why do I have to put up my own hard-earned cash to pay for those? Why don't I have government insurance to cover those expenses?
Think for a moment. The reason something costs more is because it is scarce. It is also true that we each have different concepts of what acceptable meals and housing means. It makes no sense that a government, a panel of 'medical experts', or any arbitrary group should decide what is good medical care for me or my family. This is just the same as my choosing what to eat, what to feed my family, and where to live.
What about a government mandated 'right' to a car or truck to get to and from the office?

reply to post by MarksThoughts


Are you religious sir? If so you must be aware of "do unto others"?

There are certain circumstances where I agree with you.

The healthcare issue I cannot. We also have the option of private healthcare. We don't have to go NHS. The fact that there is a national healthcare service is a godsend for those that genuinely deserve it. There are those however that abuse the system. It's the same everywhere though.

On the 'great' teeth comment. Sarcastic I presume? There seems to be a stigma attached that if you're British you've got bad teeth or are gay. Well I don't have bad teeth and am certainly not gay.

Dental care in this country can be prohibitively expensive and you get very little help from the NHS.

Many happy returns.

eX.

reply to post by joshter


This absolutely sets a precedent. Now, If it will be allowed to be referenced in the future, and not negated by a justice deciding on the spot that it has no bearing or merit on a future case, remains to be seen.