|
Post by N. De Plume on Jan 1, 2012 2:03:45 GMT -5
I understand what you're saying, but what would be the point of putting that clause in there if you can ratify the following amendment? Same point of the rest of the clauses that can just as easily be amended away. You have a rule that is in effect for as long as it is not repealed.
|
|
|
Post by the sandman on Jan 1, 2012 10:16:48 GMT -5
I disagree with making marijuana a state's rights issue because states aren't allowed to deprive someone of their property, even if that property is marijuana. The federal government's role is to protect the individuals from having their property and rights taken by states. A state (as well as the Fed or a local government through local law enforcement) does indeed have the power to deprive you of your property if that property is illegal to possess.
|
|
|
Post by the sandman on Jan 1, 2012 10:18:52 GMT -5
Castle, I maintain my utter disdain for Tenthers. But I will reserve judgment of you , personally, until such time as you may demonstrate yourself to be a dumbass.
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Jan 1, 2012 10:37:56 GMT -5
It's not worth really debating because no one knows for sure if the clause is self-entrenching; the Supreme Court would have to decide that, and the opportunity to do so will probably never come. In any event, what I said still holds true: the right of the states to equal suffrage in the Senate still has at least some extra protection that no other constitutional right has. Even if the clause is not self-entrenching you have to go through one extra step you wouldn't normally have to do (repeal the entrenched clause).
|
|
|
Post by priestling on Jan 4, 2012 1:10:19 GMT -5
Holy fucking hell, Honky, put that behind a cut or something!
|
|