California's prop 19

Dennis Putnam dap1 at BELLSOUTH.NET
Mon Oct 18 10:05:53 MDT 2010


 Unfortunately for us, that is not even close to the intent of the
commerce clause.

On 10/18/2010 9:04 AM, Steven Laib wrote:
> Dennis,
> See my earlier post - they are going to use the interstate commerce
> clause, citing Wickard v. Filburn as court authority to apply it. 
>  
> Personally, I think it is totally improper, but what do you expect out
> of an FDR run court.
>  
> SDL
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Dennis Putnam <dap1 at BELLSOUTH.NET>
> *To:* RUSHTALK at CSDCO.COM
> *Sent:* Mon, October 18, 2010 7:46:04 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [RUSHTALK] California's prop 19
>
> I wonder where in the Constitution they think they have the power to do
> that? California pot is grown, processed and sold entirely within the
> state so the commerce clause is inapplicable. Obama even has CA moving
> right so I wonder if they will join the red states and exercise their
> 10th amendment rights?
>
> On 10/17/2010 11:30 PM, Jim wrote:
> > I just saw an article at the Drudge Report saying the feds will go
> > after pot users in California even if proposition 19 passes.  Prop 19
> > would legalize pot.
> >
> > IMHO the feds should stay out of it as long as the wacky weed stays in
> > California.
>
>


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 259 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://kalos.csdco.com/pipermail/rushtalk/attachments/20101018/319e3e21/attachment.bin 


More information about the Rushtalk mailing list