Legalized Marijuana: A Modern-Day States Rights Issue

The current debate over legalized marijuana could be described as a modern-day states rights issue.

Legalized Marijuana: A Modern-Day States Rights Issue

states rightsThe current debate over legalized marijuana could be described as a modern-day states rights issue. States rights are those rights that are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution to be rights that are solely within the purview of the various states. These state rights are guaranteed by the 10th amendment, of the U.S. Constitution.

This being said, why is the debate about legalized marijuana such a hot issue for discussion, especially for certain federal officials like Jeff Sessions? The reason is that Jeff Sessions has gone out of his way to try to enforce his position, which he regards as the federal position, against legalized marijuana. Sessions also have made no secret he believes that marijuana is a “gateway drug“; a mistaken concept that has never been proven by medical experts. However, despite this, Sessions uses this as a justification for federal intervention by the Department of Justice in trying to stop states from legalizing marijuana; something which they have no way to do.

The debate over states rights has always been a hotly contested issue between the Federal government and state governments. A states rights issue, the issue of slavery, was a primary cause of the Civil War. However, this must be viewed as an extreme case and one where states rights did not apply. Clearly, slavery was an issue that the federal government had jurisdiction over, and was therefore justified in trying to control and/or abolish.

The attempt by Jeff Sessions to try to stop states from legalizing marijuana goes against the 10th amendment because the right to legalize marijuana is not listed under the laws that the federal government has jurisdiction. Therefore, the various states (now five I believe) have every right to legalized marijuana because it is clearly not a federal issue, even though the biggest hypocrite in Washington, Jeff Sessions, says it is.

I say it is more likely that Jeff Sessions, and others, say that legalized marijuana is not a states rights issue and the federal government has a right to intervene in this issue because it so happens that the states that have legalized marijuana are states that did not support Donald Trump is his quest for the presidency.

By trying to enforce federal law, Jeff Sessions is just trying to prove himself to be a faithful lap-dog of Donald Trump; a position which the Trump administration now doubts because Sessions recused himself from the investigation about the Trump campaign collusion with Russia to fix the election in favor of Trump. Opposing legalized marijuana has become a political football Jeff Sessions hopes to use to reassert his loyalty at everyone else’s expense.


Jeff Sessions Voting Record shows Him Unfit to be US Attorney General

Jeff Sessions Voting Record Shows Him Unfit to be US Attorney General Jeff Sessions voting record clearly shows that he is unfit to be US Attorney General. It demonstrates that he cannot be unbiased enough to make the necessary decisions that will face him. Donald Trump should never have designated him …
States’ rights

In American political discourse, statesrights are political powers reserved for the state governments rather than the federal government according to



The Department of Justice Poses Grave Danger to the First Amendment

The Department of Justice is threatening the First Amendment rights of six protesters arrested during a protest, on Inauguration Day last year.

DOJ is making the most insane argument that protesters and journalists should go to jail

The Department of Justice Poses Grave Danger to the First Amendment

The Department of Justice is threatening the First Amendment rights of six protesters arrested during a protest, on Inauguration Day last year. The six protesters were protesting against incoming Pres. Donald Trump, which is perfectly understandable for any reasonable person. This attempt by the DOJ to convict six protesters, some of them journalists, poses a grave danger to future protests and the First Amendment six rights of free speech if they succeed in their ridiculous quest to put away since people for expressing their displeasure against Donald Trump.

Leading the US government’s case representing the Department of Justice is Assistant US Attorney Rizwan Qureshi offered no arguments that the defendants had committed any type of violence or destroyed property. Instead, he likened them to “getaway drivers” at a robbery, which is nothing less than a huge stretch of one’s imagination. In this so-called “arguments”, Qureshi makes reference to a “sea of black” because many of the protesters were wearing black. However, he doesn’t specify whether any of these defendants themselves were wearing black. He presented absolutely no evidence that they have committed any other crime than being part of a crowd where many people were wearing black. Qureshi is suggesting that these defendants acted as some type of “shield” for other protesters who may have committed a crime. Thus, the “getaway car” analogy.

Even though he offers no arguments saying that these six defendants, he still try to have them sent to jail for committing a crime. A person should only be sent to prison if they actually committed a crime. In this case, the DOJ offers no evidence proving that these defendants were guilty of any wrongdoing or crime. This begs the very obvious question, “why does the Department of Justice, a branch of the US government, want to put these people away?

The answer should be very obvious. The US government, in this case, the Department of Justice, wants to scare people into submission, no matter what reckless policy or injustice a person may be protesting against. With this ridiculous case, it is very obvious that the DOJ is making this a test case to see what they can get away with, especially silencing dissent in the United States.

This entire case by the Department of Justice also proves to be a great irony, albeit a bitter irony. Why doesn’t the DOJ get so bent out of shape when members of the Tea Party, and other advocates of the Second Amendment, show up at a public event like a town hall meeting openly wearing firearms? After all, it is illegal to openly carry a weapon in a public place.

Where is the Department of Justice, who are supposed to be the guardians and protectors of the U.S. Constitution with these lawbreakers, openly carrying firearms in their attempt to squelch the First Amendment rights of those people who may disagree with them? If this isn’t selective law enforcement, I have never seen it.

This entire case is nothing but bullshit and I strongly suspect that Department of Justice knows it.


Senator Jeff Sessions Unfit to Be US Attorney General

Senator Jeff Sessions Unfit to Be US Attorney General One of the most controversial nominations made by President-elect Donald Trump is his nomination of Jeff Sessions to be US Attorney General.  Senator Sessions has nothing in his record that shows him as having what it takes to be head of the …
United States Department of Justice

The United States Department of Justice (DOJ), also known as the Justice Department, is a federal executive department of the U.S. government, responsible


The First Amendment Abused in the Worst Way

The Right-Wingers Contradictions About Free Speech

The Right-Wingers Contradictions about Free Speech


the right-wingersHave you ever noticed that when protesters show up at a mostly right-wing political gathering, the right-wingers contradictions always run rampant? They always complain about how the protesters are interfering with their First Amendment rights to free speech.

Yet, the right-wingers can show up at a political event, sometimes with guns (i.e. town hall meetings), intimidating people who want to attend these gatherings, often to express a dissenting position from that of the right-wingers, but the right-wingers never seem to recognize that they are interfering with the First Amendment rights of those people. What is wrong with this picture?

Why can’t these idiots understand that the U.S. Constitution is for all citizens, not just for those people who have a certain viewpoint? They never seem to be able to recognize that their position is contradictory, at best.

The right-wingers always to think it’s okay for them to take ownership over the U.S. Constitution, but deny that same sense of ownership to everyone who disagrees with them.

The U.S. Constitution was written for everybody, regardless of political viewpoint. It sure would be nice if the right-wingers would recognize that fact. This country would be so much better off if they did.


Psychopathic Traits More Likely Among Rich Right-Wingers

Apr 2, 2015 … these people in and begin organizing to take control of our lives back, not so much from the government as the right wingers like to complain, …

Gene Smith: Where have all the right-wingers gone?

Hooboy. To what depths has conservatism sunk when it must look to progressives for reminders of what conservatism has long professed to be? Here’s what Fayetteville’s Rick Glazier, from his perch at the North Carolina Justice Center, had to say about a …


Donald Trump suggests he can circumvent the U.S. Constitution when dealing with Muslims

By Juan Cole | (Informed Comment) | – – GOP presidential hopeful Donald Trump, having said earlier that he might …

Source: If Trump can track Muslims, close Mosques, what can he do to You?


Donald Trump suggests he can circumvent the U.S. Constitution when dealing with Muslims


When I first saw this story, originally on TruthDig, I was even more appalled at Donald Trump that I thought possible. Frankly, I have always hated the guy, but this brought my hatred to a new level. Mostly, I hated Donald Trump because he was a horrible example of a capitalist who had been pimping the system for years, for fun and profit, mostly profit. He has abused every bankruptcy law to make his fortune. Donald Trump has been stomping all over the average American working class person for more years than I can remember. It’s people like Donald Trump that has made me a devout anti-capitalist; something that maybe I should thank him for because I actually feel good about myself hating capitalism with a passion.

It seems that Donald Trump is actually proposing entering the identity of every Muslim in the United States into a central database, so they can be tracked. He has even suggested that it would be appropriate to put some type of mark on these people, just because they’re Muslims. Not only that, but he is actually suggested closing down every mosque in the United States would be an appropriate measure.

Hopefully, you know enough about the history of the 20th century to be reminded of one other time this happened. That was when Hitler and the Nazis started forcing all Jews in Germany to wear a yellow Star of David on their clothing. So, Donald Trump is actually proposing that we do the same thing here, except for Muslims instead of Jews?

To me this confirms one thing I have known for quite a while, Donald Trump is a hard-core racist. Added to that, his latest remarks show him to be a total fascist because what he is suggesting is akin to the fascism that took place in Germany.

This is just goes to show you how much Donald Trump is unqualified to be president of the United States because he doesn’t even know the basics of the U.S. Constitution. If he had a brain in his badly coiffed head, he would know that such a maneuver would be a gross violation of the first, fourth, and probably fifth amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

As anyone who has taken a basic civics class knows the First Amendment right of the US Constitution guarantees that anyone be allowed total freedom of religion. So Donald Trump is actually proposing that it’s okay to circumvent an important part of our Constitution by interfering and infringing upon the rights of Muslims who practice their faith? Whose rights does he propose infringing upon next, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Catholics? Who?

The fourth amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects people against unlawful search and seizure, which he would be infringed upon, because forcing a person to surrender their identity onto a central database would be unlawful search and seizure because it would force one group of people to allow themselves to be categorized as criminals. Donald Trump is actually suggesting that Muslims be classified as criminals?

The fifth amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects people from self-incrimination. In other words, if Muslims surrender themselves to be entered into a central database or be forced to wear some type of identified symbol, it would be forcing Muslims to admit that they are criminals, which is something they certainly are not.

No president of United States has the right to circumvent the US Constitution. Nor does Congress, nor does the US Supreme Court. How does Trump actually think he can get away with his ridiculous proposals?

At Donald Trump Rally, Ohio Students Become Part of a Lesson

Mostly, he has embraced the scuffles as a new and action-packed dimension of the Donald Trump experience. “Isn’t a Trump rally much more exciting than these other ones?” Mr. Trump asked as the police ejected a protester shouting “Trump’s a racist” from

Islamophobia and Donald Trump Are No Laughing Matter …

I am trying to stay above water. Trying not to drown in the poisonous pool of hate and ignorance. I am doing what I can, writing the op-eds, making sure the media hears our voices and continuing my daily work in pursuit of …

American Police Wiping Their Asses With the U.S. Constitution

American Police Wiping Their Asses With the U.S. Constitution

Recent protests have showcased American military might on domestic soil.

Source: From Ferguson to Baltimore, a 5-Step Guide to the Police Repression of Protest

I knew that the police were out of control and fast becoming more of a paramilitary force, but I learned a lot from reading this article in “In These Times“.  The increase of militarization of our police forces has gotten to the point that our First Amendment rights are deeply threatened.

Most of the problem seems to stem from the infamous 1033 program, a program that supplies local police with often highly sophisticated types of weaponry that police never had access to before, and I firmly believe should not have access to.  After all, we are citizens and we have a right to protest whatever evils that may exist in our system.  Peaceful protesters should not be treated like enemies of the state or domestic terrorists, which is too often the case that the police use for an excuse to attack their fellow citizens who are merely engaging in exercising their rights to free speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The weapons being supplied to local police forces under the 1033 program range from so-called “non-lethal weapons “such as tasers, military grade teargas and pepper spray, to different types of ammunition that is meant to incapacitate “perpetrators”.  Some of the more sophisticated weapons being supplied to police forces are sound cannons, and high tech devices designed to allow police to intercept cell phone conversations and all types of text messages, to devices that allow police to jam cell phone use altogether.  Clearly, intercepting cell phone cause is a violation of a person’s fourth amendment rights.  It has already been ruled in several court cases that police must obtain a warrant to tap cell phones.  Why should it be any different in the case of a protest?

Police have also started monitoring social media, such as, Facebook, twitter, and other social media websites.  They do this by setting up bogus accounts and pages in an attempt to make friends with people they already know to be politically active, especially those who self identify as being anarchist, socialists, communists, or having ties to left-wing organizations.  Police have even started data-mining specific groups of citizens who appear to be in any way engaged in radical politics.  This entire situation has gotten way out of control, and must be stopped before we can truly call ourselves free citizens.

Just because some of us go against the status quo and the establishment doesn’t mean that we deserve to be classified as “domestic terrorists”.  In reality, we are just American citizens who value the U.S. Constitution and the rights we are guaranteed by it.

As for the police, they need to remember who they truly are and what purpose they are truly meant for; protecting us from genuine criminals and that is not us.


Baltimore police’s handling of injured suspects questioned

Abdul-Aziz said that in 2009 he was severely beaten by police just a few blocks from where Gray was arrested. “One cop hold my leg down, the other one with his knee in my chest,” he said. Asked how many times the officers hit him, he said “after five I
Does This Video Prove That Police Arrested The Wrong …

A driver in the Detroit area had an extremely close call on Friday as a black Dodge Challenger raced past him on the right side in excess of 100 mph. He caught the incident on his dash cam video. The police made an arrest, …