Liberal Vermont Rebels agains the Federal Government

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Liberal Vermont Rebels agains the Federal Government

    Well, not in the armed resistance sense of course. Nevertheless, this seems to me to be an important test of the 10th amendment rights of the individual states to conduct business in the ways that they see fit wihtout interference from the Federal government.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/21/vermont-hemp_n_3632325.html

    WAITSFIELD, Vt. -- Some Vermont farmers want to plant hemp now that the state has a law setting up rules to grow the plant, a cousin of marijuana that's more suitable for making sandals than getting high.

    But federal law forbids growing hemp without a permit, so farmers could be risking the farm if they decide to grow the plant that the Drug Enforcement Agency basically considers marijuana.

    The bill that Democratic Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin signed into law last month is intended to push the federal government to change its law after Canada reintroduced industrial hemp in the late 1990s.

    "The reason we want to push for a change is that hemp is potentially a valuable crop," said Democratic Rep. Caroline Partridge, chairwoman of the Vermont House Committee on Agriculture and Forest Products. "People want to grow it. Hemp oil is a valuable product, and there's so much of the hemp plant that can be used for very, very productive purposes,"

    The Vermont law sets up procedures and policies for growing hemp. A grower must register with the state agriculture secretary and provide a statement that seeds used do not exceed a certain concentration of THC.

    The grower also must allow the hemp crops to be inspected and tested at the discretion of the Agriculture Agency, which warns growers that cultivating and possessing hemp in Vermont is a violation of federal law.

     

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Liberal Vermont Rebels agains the Federal Government

    if liberals are sure of anything, it is that 'state's rights' is a code word for Jim Crow racism. Sneer and snark occurs at any mention of the 10th Amendment.

    If Texas Governor Rick Perry mentions the 10th Amendment, he is a racist and wants to secede and start the second Confederacy. 

    Gov Shumlin of Vermont? That is a different story. 

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: Liberal Vermont Rebels agains the Federal Government

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    If Texas Governor Rick Perry mentions the 10th Amendment, he is a racist and wants to secede and start the second Confederacy.  



    “Texas is a unique place. When we came into the union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that,” Perry said. “My hope is that America and Washington in particular pays attention. We’ve got a great union. There’s absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, who knows what may come of that.”

    Rick Perry April 2009

    How statesmanly of Perry, would be presidential candidate of the United States, to openly wonder if Texas might be able to leave the union if Washington kept thumbing its nose at the American people. Of course that didn't include taking all those billions in stimulus moneys, billions in other federal dollars directed to Texas, etc.  He was just saying, y'all.  

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Liberal Vermont Rebels agains the Federal Government

    Damian, what do you think of the Vermont law allowing the growing of hemp?

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Liberal Vermont Rebels agains the Federal Government

    Just another example of the neo-cons penchant for elevating one clause of the Constitution at the expense of the rest of the document.

    Are they not all equally important?

     

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: Liberal Vermont Rebels agains the Federal Government

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

    Damian, what do you think of the Vermont law allowing the growing of hemp?

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.



    I think they are raising a valid question to the feds in the form of the law that was passed, while at the same time hedging and notifying thier people of the potential risks involved with growing hemp.  It doesn't appear that Vermont has decided to plow ahead, consequences bedamned, but rather are trying to force the issue to the front for consideration.  

    I can't think of a single good reason why the prohibition on growing hemp shouldn't be revisited.  

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Liberal Vermont Rebels agains the Federal Government

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]Just another example of the neo-cons penchant for elevating one clause of the Constitution at the expense of the rest of the document.

     

    Are they not all equally important?

     

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

    [/QUOTE]

    It is not an" importance" thing, it is a "validity" thing: Is the tenth ammendment valid or not?  

    The liberal arument that people citing the 10th amendment are making some sort of determination of importance is wooly-headed at best. They are simply citing the amendment that is concerning the issue they are addressing.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Liberal Vermont Rebels agains the Federal Government

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    [QUOTE]It is not an" importance" thing, it is a "validity" thing: Is the tenth ammendment valid or not?



    Oh for the....

     


    Don't be so silly. You know it's a question of interpretation of the Amendment's text, which is itself dependent on the interpretation of every other provision in the Constitution.

     

    In response to The First Congress's comment:

    [QUOTE]The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.[/QUOTE]

     

    So for example, the extremely broad interpretation of the Interstate Commerce and Tax & Spend clauses by the Supreme Court necessarily expands the "powers...delegated to the United States by the Constitution."   And the problem - the place where people like Perry catch all the flak - is that they don't get into that. They just say '10th Amendment. States rights. Texas! Texas! Texas!"

    It's foolish.[/QUOTE]

    Is the 10th amendment more important than the 11th amendment?

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from macnh1. Show macnh1's posts

    Re: Liberal Vermont Rebels agains the Federal Government


    legalize pot and tax it like crazy.....

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Liberal Vermont Rebels agains the Federal Government

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    if liberals are sure of anything, it is that 'state's rights' is a code word for Jim Crow racism. Sneer and snark occurs at any mention of the 10th Amendment.

    If Texas Governor Rick Perry mentions the 10th Amendment, he is a racist and wants to secede and start the second Confederacy. 

    Gov Shumlin of Vermont? That is a different story. 

     



    Vermonters want states' rights to plant crops and grow their economy (literally and figuratively).

    Texas and others want states' rights to restrict some citizens from voting.

    If you don't see the difference, then you don't want to see it.

     

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Liberal Vermont Rebels agains the Federal Government

    In response to macnh1's comment:


    legalize pot and tax it like crazy.....



    This is about hemp, not pot.

    Try to keep up.

     

    Nice to see another conservative drop the scales about taxes, though.  As long as it's just affecting them dirty hippies (and terminal cases), then who cares, right...??

     

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Liberal Vermont Rebels agains the Federal Government

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:

     

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

     

     

    Damian, what do you think of the Vermont law allowing the growing of hemp?

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     

     



    I think they are raising a valid question to the feds in the form of the law that was passed, while at the same time hedging and notifying thier people of the potential risks involved with growing hemp.  It doesn't appear that Vermont has decided to plow ahead, consequences bedamned, but rather are trying to force the issue to the front for consideration.  

     

     

    I can't think of a single good reason why the prohibition on growing hemp shouldn't be revisited.  

     



    The oil companies can think of many reasons - the many ways in which hemp would compete with the petro-chem industry - which is why they oppose it at the national level and always have.

     

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Liberal Vermont Rebels agains the Federal Government

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:

     

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

     

     

    Damian, what do you think of the Vermont law allowing the growing of hemp?

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     

     



    I think they are raising a valid question to the feds in the form of the law that was passed, while at the same time hedging and notifying thier people of the potential risks involved with growing hemp.  It doesn't appear that Vermont has decided to plow ahead, consequences bedamned, but rather are trying to force the issue to the front for consideration.  

     

     

    I can't think of a single good reason why the prohibition on growing hemp shouldn't be revisited.  

     



    The oil companies can think of many reasons - the many ways in which hemp would compete with the petro-chem industry - which is why they oppose it at the national level and always have.

     

     



    I think that's just paranoid.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Liberal Vermont Rebels agains the Federal Government

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:

     

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

     

     

    Damian, what do you think of the Vermont law allowing the growing of hemp?

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     

     



    I think they are raising a valid question to the feds in the form of the law that was passed, while at the same time hedging and notifying thier people of the potential risks involved with growing hemp.  It doesn't appear that Vermont has decided to plow ahead, consequences bedamned, but rather are trying to force the issue to the front for consideration.  

     

     

    I can't think of a single good reason why the prohibition on growing hemp shouldn't be revisited.  

     



    The oil companies can think of many reasons - the many ways in which hemp would compete with the petro-chem industry - which is why they oppose it at the national level and always have.

     

     

     



    I think that's just paranoid.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Really?!  There's way too much money involved in oil and oil-based products NOT to notice that Big Oil would block this.  

    Take a look at the scope of products industrialized hemp could produce (or outright replace).  Machine lubricants from hemp oil alone are game-changers.

    We're talking about the influence moneying interests have upon our govt, well here is a grade-a, prime example.

     

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Liberal Vermont Rebels agains the Federal Government

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to macnh1's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     


    legalize pot and tax it like crazy.....

     



    This is about hemp, not pot.

     

    Try to keep up.

     

    Nice to see another conservative drop the scales about taxes, though.  As long as it's just affecting them dirty hippies (and terminal cases), then who cares, right...??

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Well if pretty much everything else is taxed why not pot? BTW...I've seen and heard PLENTY of liberals talk about taxing it too. 

    Another BTW...are all hippies dirty? Do hippies not shower like the rest of us? I had no idea.

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Liberal Vermont Rebels agains the Federal Government

     

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

     

    This makes perfect sense. The part that you left out is that the Constitution defines what powers can be exercised by the Federal government and thus where their laws should be held to be supreme.

    The Federal government is bound by the constitution to stay within it's sphere of legal power. Vermont is saying that the law that prohibits the farming of hemp is not within the power sphere of the Federal government, it is in theirs.

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Liberal Vermont Rebels agains the Federal Government

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:

     

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

     

     

    Damian, what do you think of the Vermont law allowing the growing of hemp?

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

    I think they are raising a valid question to the feds in the form of the law that was passed, while at the same time hedging and notifying thier people of the potential risks involved with growing hemp.  It doesn't appear that Vermont has decided to plow ahead, consequences bedamned, but rather are trying to force the issue to the front for consideration.  

    I can't think of a single good reason why the prohibition on growing hemp shouldn't be revisited. 

    The oil companies can think of many reasons - the many ways in which hemp would compete with the petro-chem industry - which is why they oppose it at the national level and always have.

     



    I think that's just paranoid.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You must be trolling. It's well known.

     


    It's also basic economics/business. Businesses always fight other market entrants that might nab customers.

     

    For the same reasons big oil opposes hemp, big alcohol opposes pot legalization.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I guess it is true after all: smoking too much pot rots the  brain cells and induces paranoia.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Liberal Vermont Rebels agains the Federal Government

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]Is the 10th amendment more important than the 11th amendment?



    I see I wasted serious discussion on you.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Sure.  Run back into the closet, or basement.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Liberal Vermont Rebels agains the Federal Government

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

     

     

    This makes perfect sense. The part that you left out is that the Constitution defines what powers can be exercised by the Federal government and thus where their laws should be held to be supreme.

    The Federal government is bound by the constitution to stay within it's sphere of legal power. Vermont is saying that the law that prohibits the farming of hemp is not within the power sphere of the Federal government, it is in theirs.

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     

     




    This is settled law.

    The Commerce Clause is one of the most fundamental powers granted to the federal gov't.

    It doesn't matter a whit what Vt thinks about the federal hemp ban, it is a valid law.

    The only issue is if the Fed chooses to enforce the federal law.

    If they do then VT is in violation of federal law, a law written in compliance with any number Constitutional clauses and case law affirming the power of the fed to write such a law.

    What you want and what is reality are very often two diametrically opposing thoughts.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    If it is settled law, VT is in violation of the law.  If the government fails to enforce it, well, that's the road to anarchy.

    Enough of this supposed executive power to enforce the constitution, except when it is inconvienient.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Liberal Vermont Rebels agains the Federal Government

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

     

     

    This makes perfect sense. The part that you left out is that the Constitution defines what powers can be exercised by the Federal government and thus where their laws should be held to be supreme.

    The Federal government is bound by the constitution to stay within it's sphere of legal power. Vermont is saying that the law that prohibits the farming of hemp is not within the power sphere of the Federal government, it is in theirs.

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     

     

     

     

     

     




    This is settled law.

    The Commerce Clause is one of the most fundamental powers granted to the federal gov't.

    It doesn't matter a whit what Vt thinks about the federal hemp ban, it is a valid law.

    The only issue is if the Fed chooses to enforce the federal law.

    If they do then VT is in violation of federal law, a law written in compliance with any number Constitutional clauses and case law affirming the power of the fed to write such a law.

    What you want and what is reality are very often two diametrically opposing thoughts.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    If it is settled law, VT is in violation of the law.  If the government fails to enforce it, well, that's the road to anarchy.

     

     

    Enough of this supposed executive power to enforce the constitution, except when it is inconvienient.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    No, VT is not in violation of the law. Any state can write any number of laws contradicting federal law. They are only in violation of federal statute if they try to enforce or otherwise enact the law.

     

    WDYWN posted the situation in La. where the cops are arresting gay men in violation of a local law they still have on the books against sodomy or something but has been struck down on the federal level. Those cops are in violation federal law.

    [/QUOTE]

    Stop wandering around.  here's what you posted:

    "The only issue is if the Fed chooses to enforce the federal law."

    If they do then VT is in violation of federal law, a law written in compliance with any number Constitutional clauses and case law affirming the power of the fed to write such a law.

    That's just rubbish.  

     

     

Share