Quote:
|
Originally Posted by politicophile
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by a "Federal mandate". If you mean an excessively controlling, but technically constitutional law, then you are incorrect. There is no problem with federal law being used to override the wishes of the population of a state, provided that the power in question is granted to the Congress by the Constitution.
If, on the other hand, you mean to say that "Federal mandate[s]" are unconstitutional federal laws, then you are, of course correct.
I imagine what we are dealing with here is an interstate commerce issue, which seems like BS to me, but what do I know about Con Law?  |
I don't see how it can possibly be interstae commerce. They barely got the medicinal marijuana on that.
How will they call this interstate? What because the drugs manufactured cross state lines? That truly is stretching it.
What amazes me most is BushCo and these Neocons who call for less government interference, more states rights and true interpretation ("original intent") of the Constitution are the ones so gung ho to overturn VOTERS WILL.
Just boggles my brain how people can support the power hungry man who believes the voters voices just don't matter.