Community | May 16, 2011 | 12 comments

Medical Marijuana Providers In Montana Sue The Federal Government After Being Raided

source: http://www.politicalfailblog.com/2011/05/medical-marijuana-providers-in-montana.html

Image
Pfailblog
In what may be the first law suit of its kind, two medical marijuana providers from Montana filed a federal lawsuit last Tuesday against the U.S. Government citing civil rights violations for the federal raids on medical marijuana operations in the state of Montana.

http://www.politicalfailblog.com/2011/05/medical-marijuana-providers-in-montana....
  1. groups:
    Community,   Politics,   Green,   Current Tonight,   6 more
  2. tags:
    Marijuana,  Cannabis,  Medical Marijuana
  3.     
    |

12 comments // Medical Marijuana Providers In Montana Sue The Federal Government After Being Raided

  • Incredulous
    • 0
      Incredulous  

    • Future generations will look on this era as we do the era of prohibition now. We look like the stupidest people on the planet. It's a freaking plant, and our country is waging a war against it. The Age of Ignorance marches on...

    • 1 year ago
  • madjik68
    • 0
      madjik68  

    • Maybe they're just spaying for spider mites. lol They should know there are less toxic ways to handle an infestation.

    • 1 year ago
  • simplecj
    • +4
      simplecj  

    • I think it's hilarious that those guys always wear hazmat type suits and gas masks in grow rooms as if they're going to overdose from the smell of bud. I partly think it's just to make the whole scene look more dramatic and dangerous than it really is.

      I hope these guys win their case, the war on weed is a failure and a major waste of tax dollars. It needs to end now!

    • 1 year ago
  • samthesixth
  • givemeliberty3
    • +3
      givemeliberty3  

    • This should be a good case and may go to the supreme court. There are three evolutions of law to be considered, The precedent of the federal law over state law. but with the proposition of the 10th amendment allowing the greater right for the state of legal use of medical marijuana. The determining federal precedent should actually be the requirement of the 9th Amendment of the Constitution of respect for a greater right of the people which is the supreme authority of our law.

    • 1 year ago
  • ThatCrazyLibertarian
  • givemeliberty3
  • ThatCrazyLibertarian
  • givemeliberty3
    • 0
      givemeliberty3  
    • ThatCrazyLibertarian:

      Justice Scalia has a written a responsibility of the judicial prudence for the 9th Amendment, relative to the Enumerated rights, to define a greater responsibility for the interpretation of that right, to invoke a wide latitude of understanding of the right for the benefit of the people. For which he did not invoke in this most recent decision.

      the Constitutional mandate to " secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity"...

      The U.S. Constitution, 9th Amendment is there for that purpose to protect the individual liberty of the people. Quoted here: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage
      others retained by the people."
      The first interpretation and responsibility of this Amendment is to establish the rights of the people as numbered in the list of amendments and articles, even though the statement of a right is not expressed, such as the 1st Amendment, with regards to "Congress shall make no law". This Statement has been made to have all law makers comply to the right of the people by all of the governments of our nation.
      An additional 2nd interpretation of this amendment Leaves open a responsibility to Other Rights of the people not expressed, but open to constitutional protection as so stated in the constitutional mandate to " secure the Blessings of Liberty to our selves and our Posterity".
      An additional 3rd interpretation is: The 9th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution has a duty for the judiciary to maintain a responsibility to respect the greater right of the people for the limitation of the jurisdiction of the law. Other wise they should be found in contempt of the 9th Amendment, based on, " shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." With "others" representing a meaning of "other rights". The other rights of the people are those common to the individual survival, free trade, and freedom of the people for which common acceptance of society has understood the sense of this respect, but not limited too. Meaning that some settled law limitations have been determined in the past as an institutional constriction of these rights, which previously have not been judged to the responsibility of the 9th Amendment, as required for all the judiciary, the President, congress, state governors, legislators, county and city government leaders, to include all levels of government agencies as required for all, per their oath of duty and office to our U.S. Constitution.
      All three interpretation are relative to the responsibility and duty of the 9th Amendment.

    • 1 year ago
  • givemeliberty3
  • GRC54
  • littlwarrior
more from Community:
from the community

top videos