drumpf again urges not to do anything for 2 years on ACA, then says but that's not the right thing to do for the American people, then without a hint of seque just starts talking about winning big again because we don't win at anything, and we're gonna build a great border wall.

this is the leader of the free world leading

td11 wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Two things so far that are really looking up from the Trump presidency are left of center people in these United States realizing Russia is bad and states rights are good.

Come on.

Russia has never been "not bad." We mocked Romney in 2012 for calling Russia our biggest threat, not for calling them bad. I don't think anyone could've foreseen this election scenario playing out that would've validated his point.

And states rights is ALWAYS a mixed bag. Sometimes good, sometimes not, and it nearly always depends on (1) a person's philosophy of government, and (2) whether the person likes the people in charge. This isn't some new revelation in February 2017.

on the states rights issue, it's pretty clear that elected Rs don't actually give a #$!&@ about states rights. when it comes to protecting trans kids in public schools: leave it up to the states, and when it comes to legal weed: #$!&@ the states

The weed issue will probably end up in the courts because the affected states will be pretty damn pissed. At some point the fed will be told to fuck off based on the 10th amendment

there's an illness. An illness in his head.

Warszawa wrote:

td11 wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Two things so far that are really looking up from the Trump presidency are left of center people in these United States realizing Russia is bad and states rights are good.

Come on.

Russia has never been "not bad." We mocked Romney in 2012 for calling Russia our biggest threat, not for calling them bad. I don't think anyone could've foreseen this election scenario playing out that would've validated his point.

And states rights is ALWAYS a mixed bag. Sometimes good, sometimes not, and it nearly always depends on (1) a person's philosophy of government, and (2) whether the person likes the people in charge. This isn't some new revelation in February 2017.

on the states rights issue, it's pretty clear that elected Rs don't actually give a #$!&@ about states rights. when it comes to protecting trans kids in public schools: leave it up to the states, and when it comes to legal weed: #$!&@ the states

The weed issue will probably end up in the courts because the affected states will be pretty damn pissed. At some point the fed will be told to fuck off based on the 10th amendment

Millions of Republicans are erect. Even if they don't feel right about the devil's lettuce, a strong SCOTUS opinion around the 10th would make them sproing quicker than Embiid at a Rihanna concert.

Warszawa wrote:

td11 wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Two things so far that are really looking up from the Trump presidency are left of center people in these United States realizing Russia is bad and states rights are good.

Come on.

Russia has never been "not bad." We mocked Romney in 2012 for calling Russia our biggest threat, not for calling them bad. I don't think anyone could've foreseen this election scenario playing out that would've validated his point.

And states rights is ALWAYS a mixed bag. Sometimes good, sometimes not, and it nearly always depends on (1) a person's philosophy of government, and (2) whether the person likes the people in charge. This isn't some new revelation in February 2017.

on the states rights issue, it's pretty clear that elected Rs don't actually give a #$!&@ about states rights. when it comes to protecting trans kids in public schools: leave it up to the states, and when it comes to legal weed: #$!&@ the states

The weed issue will probably end up in the courts because the affected states will be pretty damn pissed. At some point the fed will be told to fuck off based on the 10th amendment

federal courts almost always rule that federal law overrules state law, so I would think the states would lose

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:

Warszawa wrote:

td11 wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Two things so far that are really looking up from the Trump presidency are left of center people in these United States realizing Russia is bad and states rights are good.

Come on.

Russia has never been "not bad." We mocked Romney in 2012 for calling Russia our biggest threat, not for calling them bad. I don't think anyone could've foreseen this election scenario playing out that would've validated his point.

And states rights is ALWAYS a mixed bag. Sometimes good, sometimes not, and it nearly always depends on (1) a person's philosophy of government, and (2) whether the person likes the people in charge. This isn't some new revelation in February 2017.

on the states rights issue, it's pretty clear that elected Rs don't actually give a #$!&@ about states rights. when it comes to protecting trans kids in public schools: leave it up to the states, and when it comes to legal weed: #$!&@ the states

The weed issue will probably end up in the courts because the affected states will be pretty damn pissed. At some point the fed will be told to #$!&@ off based on the 10th amendment

federal courts almost always rule that federal law overrules state law, so I would think the states would lose

But....the constitution?

Warszawa wrote:

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:

Warszawa wrote:

td11 wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Two things so far that are really looking up from the Trump presidency are left of center people in these United States realizing Russia is bad and states rights are good.

Come on.

Russia has never been "not bad." We mocked Romney in 2012 for calling Russia our biggest threat, not for calling them bad. I don't think anyone could've foreseen this election scenario playing out that would've validated his point.

And states rights is ALWAYS a mixed bag. Sometimes good, sometimes not, and it nearly always depends on (1) a person's philosophy of government, and (2) whether the person likes the people in charge. This isn't some new revelation in February 2017.

on the states rights issue, it's pretty clear that elected Rs don't actually give a #$!&@ about states rights. when it comes to protecting trans kids in public schools: leave it up to the states, and when it comes to legal weed: #$!&@ the states

The weed issue will probably end up in the courts because the affected states will be pretty damn pissed. At some point the fed will be told to #$!&@ off based on the 10th amendment

federal courts almost always rule that federal law overrules state law, so I would think the states would lose

But....the constitution?

it's in the constitution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

now muttering something about "sequesture". He has such words

CPAC crowd's now as lost as any of his audiences always are by his incoherent rambling

legal weed laws by states including medical, have always been tenuous since weed is a schedule 1 drug

in fact the feds have busted up weed clinics in California basically to make money through confiscation and there's not a damn thing that can be done

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:

Warszawa wrote:

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:

Warszawa wrote:

td11 wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Two things so far that are really looking up from the Trump presidency are left of center people in these United States realizing Russia is bad and states rights are good.

Come on.

Russia has never been "not bad." We mocked Romney in 2012 for calling Russia our biggest threat, not for calling them bad. I don't think anyone could've foreseen this election scenario playing out that would've validated his point.

And states rights is ALWAYS a mixed bag. Sometimes good, sometimes not, and it nearly always depends on (1) a person's philosophy of government, and (2) whether the person likes the people in charge. This isn't some new revelation in February 2017.

on the states rights issue, it's pretty clear that elected Rs don't actually give a #$!&@ about states rights. when it comes to protecting trans kids in public schools: leave it up to the states, and when it comes to legal weed: #$!&@ the states

The weed issue will probably end up in the courts because the affected states will be pretty damn pissed. At some point the fed will be told to #$!&@ off based on the 10th amendment

federal courts almost always rule that federal law overrules state law, so I would think the states would lose

But....the constitution?

it's in the constitution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

"There's no conflict. The Tenth Amendment refers to 'powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution' whereas the Supremacy Clause refers to laws made persuant to powers that are delegated to the United States by the Constitution.

To put it simply, the Constitution lists the powers that the federal government has. It then says (in the Tenth Amendment) that anything that isn't on the list is a state power.
So federal laws are 'the supreme Law of the Land', but only if they're valid. And they are only valid if they are within the power given to the federal government by the Constitution. So that doesn't conflict with the states having power over everything else."

Thank you Yahoo Answers!

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:

Warszawa wrote:

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:

Warszawa wrote:

td11 wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Two things so far that are really looking up from the Trump presidency are left of center people in these United States realizing Russia is bad and states rights are good.

Come on.

Russia has never been "not bad." We mocked Romney in 2012 for calling Russia our biggest threat, not for calling them bad. I don't think anyone could've foreseen this election scenario playing out that would've validated his point.

And states rights is ALWAYS a mixed bag. Sometimes good, sometimes not, and it nearly always depends on (1) a person's philosophy of government, and (2) whether the person likes the people in charge. This isn't some new revelation in February 2017.

on the states rights issue, it's pretty clear that elected Rs don't actually give a #$!&@ about states rights. when it comes to protecting trans kids in public schools: leave it up to the states, and when it comes to legal weed: #$!&@ the states

The weed issue will probably end up in the courts because the affected states will be pretty damn pissed. At some point the fed will be told to #$!&@ off based on the 10th amendment

federal courts almost always rule that federal law overrules state law, so I would think the states would lose

But....the constitution?

it's in the constitution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

The Supremacy Clause is just a backdrop on this issue. There's no question that federal law trumps state law when there is a conflict. It comes down to whether outlawing marijuana falls under the purview of the federal government under the Commerce Clause.

Sadly, this is a really well-settled issue. I think that SCOTUS went off the rails in this area over a century ago, but my opinion doesn't matter. The bottom line is that even if the legalized marijuana is grown, sold, and used entirely within the state, Congress can still regulate it because its presence indirectly impacts interstate commerce. That's from a 1942 case called Wickard v. Filburn, and the rule was expanded to medicinal marijuana in Gonzales v. Raich in 2005.

Warszawa wrote:

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:

Warszawa wrote:

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:

Warszawa wrote:

td11 wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Two things so far that are really looking up from the Trump presidency are left of center people in these United States realizing Russia is bad and states rights are good.

Come on.

Russia has never been "not bad." We mocked Romney in 2012 for calling Russia our biggest threat, not for calling them bad. I don't think anyone could've foreseen this election scenario playing out that would've validated his point.

And states rights is ALWAYS a mixed bag. Sometimes good, sometimes not, and it nearly always depends on (1) a person's philosophy of government, and (2) whether the person likes the people in charge. This isn't some new revelation in February 2017.

on the states rights issue, it's pretty clear that elected Rs don't actually give a #$!&@ about states rights. when it comes to protecting trans kids in public schools: leave it up to the states, and when it comes to legal weed: #$!&@ the states

The weed issue will probably end up in the courts because the affected states will be pretty damn pissed. At some point the fed will be told to #$!&@ off based on the 10th amendment

federal courts almost always rule that federal law overrules state law, so I would think the states would lose

But....the constitution?

it's in the constitution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

"There's no conflict. The Tenth Amendment refers to 'powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution' whereas the Supremacy Clause refers to laws made persuant to powers that are delegated to the United States by the Constitution.

To put it simply, the Constitution lists the powers that the federal government has. It then says (in the Tenth Amendment) that anything that isn't on the list is a state power.
So federal laws are 'the supreme Law of the Land', but only if they're valid. And they are only valid if they are within the power given to the federal government by the Constitution. So that doesn't conflict with the states having power over everything else."

Thank you Yahoo Answers!

good luck hoping the SCOTUS will deem making drugs illegal not a power given to the Feds by the constitution

Seriously guys, this isn't even a debate unless the Roberts court decides to overturn Raich.

The Washington Post now has the slogan "Democracy Dies in Darkness" underneath its title on both the main page and once you start navigating its site.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:

Warszawa wrote:

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:

Warszawa wrote:

td11 wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Two things so far that are really looking up from the Trump presidency are left of center people in these United States realizing Russia is bad and states rights are good.

Come on.

Russia has never been "not bad." We mocked Romney in 2012 for calling Russia our biggest threat, not for calling them bad. I don't think anyone could've foreseen this election scenario playing out that would've validated his point.

And states rights is ALWAYS a mixed bag. Sometimes good, sometimes not, and it nearly always depends on (1) a person's philosophy of government, and (2) whether the person likes the people in charge. This isn't some new revelation in February 2017.

on the states rights issue, it's pretty clear that elected Rs don't actually give a #$!&@ about states rights. when it comes to protecting trans kids in public schools: leave it up to the states, and when it comes to legal weed: #$!&@ the states

The weed issue will probably end up in the courts because the affected states will be pretty damn pissed. At some point the fed will be told to #$!&@ off based on the 10th amendment

federal courts almost always rule that federal law overrules state law, so I would think the states would lose

But....the constitution?

it's in the constitution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

The Supremacy Clause is just a backdrop on this issue. There's no question that federal law trumps state law when there is a conflict. It comes down to whether outlawing marijuana falls under the purview of the federal government under the Commerce Clause.

Sadly, this is a really well-settled issue. I think that SCOTUS went off the rails in this area over a century ago, but my opinion doesn't matter. The bottom line is that even if the legalized marijuana is grown, sold, and used entirely within the state, Congress can still regulate it because its presence indirectly impacts interstate commerce. That's from a 1942 case called Wickard v. Filburn, and the rule was expanded to medicinal marijuana in Gonzales v. Raich in 2005.

Hmmmm....but I imagine the states involved will take it to court anyway. I wonder what happens when the Feds actually try to shut things down in California without state law enforcement support

Sure they will. And there are probably some minutiae in the new swath of laws and the facts as applied versus the medicinal marijuana structure in Raich that will allow the states to make some fresh legal arguments. But for the most part, they will be arguing that Raich was wrongly decided barely more than a decade ago. That's a really tough uphill battle, even if the specific makeup of the Court has changed.

The saving grace is that the breakdown of the justices in Raich were:

Majority: Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, Scalia (concurrence)
Dissent: O'Connor, Rehnquist, Thomas

So that case might make for interesting bedfellows, and you never know if Kennedy and RBG might change their minds 12+ years later.

drumpf is doing what numerous bigco ceos do: say something, then proceed to behave as if they have done something

@PeterHamby
Crowd at CPAC waving these little pro-Trump flags that look exactly like the Russian flag. Staffers quickly come around to confiscate them.

these fucking GOP monsters. I cannot believe we've gotten to this point. between this and Bannon with his constant "globalist" talk, which everyone on the internet at this point knows is just conspiracy code words for Jews, I'm shocked the Trump approval rating is higher than 10%.

I'm not shocked

dupes be dupin'