Abrogate Prohibition Michigan Ballot Question Committee Amendment...

[+Malamute]

In Constitutional Law, if it is not directly Prohibited, it is directly allowed.  Defining 'use' in Constitutional Language, aka Civil Law, does not limit the language to only that listed use. as use is not Codified into what can not be done, but some of the things that can be used.

 

Remember. Civil Law, aka Constitutional Language, must be able to be understood by anyone that has a 3rd grade reading ability and comprehension level.

 

Because 'Use' is a list of some uses, and there are no limits with in 'use', and all prohibitions (aka limitations or diminishing of use) have been removed, it will be very hard to find cause for 'actionable offence'.

 

The Press Release that went out last Tuesday was written and released by the State Board of Elections, not Abrogate Prohibition Michigan.

 

 

 

 O boy.

 

Did you even take constitutional law in High school Tim?

 

Just stop while you're behind.

 

Seriously.  It is like you are using Sarah Palin logic there. A mish mash of mostly untrue or inapplicable partial points.

 

 I wish you the best on getting signatures.

 

 

 

 

 

the answer tim gave last time this came up was that the constitution has to be read differently than the regular mcl. do you have any documentation/case law that says the constitutional law is read differently (more broadly) than the mcl ?

 

before anyone gets too bent out of shape thinking i'm attacking abrogate, i'm not. i looked into the details fully of mcc and milegalize and picked it apart the same way. i just want to maximize the protections and such in each proposal.

 

It isn't read differently, it is just superior to statute law.

[Timmahh]

(4) No excise tax, no fines, no regulation to diminish use, shall be levied or allowed for use of Cannabis.

 

"no regulation to diminish growing, manufacture, delivery, purchase, consumption, and transport, of any seed, flower, leaf, mixture, derivative, extract, product, and or preparation of the cannabis plant for all personal, recreational, medicinal, commercial and industrial purposes."

 

the definition of "Debilitating medical condition" 333.26423b is "regulation to diminish medicinal purposes" by limiting the qualifying conditions.

 

the definition of "Enclosed, locked facility" 333.26423d is "regulation to diminish" the growing of cannabis.

 

hmm maybe i am looking at too small of the details. lets go bigger.

 

Sec. 6. (a) The department shall issue registry identification cards to qualifying patients who submit the following, in accordance with the department's rules:

 

this is a regulation to diminish use.

 

 

(b) The department shall not issue a registry identification card to a qualifying patient who is under the age of 18 unless:

 

this is a regulation to diminish use.

 

once those parts are "not allowed constitutionally", would lara be issuing licenses for an unconstitutional mmma law?

 

further it would change the "in accordance with this act" part of the protections in the mmma. how it would change the protections i have no idea, be it positive or negative. does that mean if any parts of the mmma are unconstitutional that no one can successfully be "in accordance with this act" ? rendering all protections null? or simply "in accordance with the remaining constitutional parts of this act" ?

 

i would love to be proven wrong on this.

 

and just to be clear, this is only my opinion. i cant see the future, i hope what i'm saying is factual, these do appear to conflict.

 

The Verbiage of the MMM Act would be there, but mostly Moot....  The MMM Act was passed as indirect legislative initiative, thus would fall under the Authority of the Constitution and Abrogates Constitutional Amendment.

 

Become far more familiar with how the Constitution rules in authority over Government, the Courts, The Legislature and Legislation, aka Acts like the MMM Act, and why the Constitution is called the 'Supreme Law of the Land".

[Timmahh]

Abrogate doesn't remove all penalties or possible infractions due to improperly defining "use".

 

But it is pretty good as I have said many times.

 

Can it better? Yes!

 

But wtvr.

Then outline what was missed if you would please. Give an example please.  I am truly interested in this conversation.

[t-pain]

well then be honest and upfront about abrogate killing off the MMMA , tim.

[Timmahh]

No , doesn't matter your perspective. That is simply not true,... at all.

Sure it does.

 

Courts Issue Opinions.  I have my own.  you have yours.

 

But courts do NOT issue RULES, or LAW, they make Opinions, We the People Make Constitutional Law of which the 'opinions' of the Courts must align under.

When the Courts Opnions do not align under the Supreme Law of the Land, then that court "Opinion" is Nugatory, thus null and void.

 

Constitutional Law for the win.

[Timmahh]

the prisons are filled with people who thought they had the right "perspective" on the mmma.

 

Yup. No thanks to Bad Court OPINION and inadequate representation. 

[+Malamute]

Sure it does.

 

Courts Issue Opinions.  I have my own.  you have yours.

 

But courts do NOT issue RULES, or LAW, they make Opinions, We the People Make Constitutional Law of which the 'opinions' of the Courts must align under.

When the Courts Opnions do not align under the Supreme Law of the Land, then that court "Opinion" is Nugatory, thus null and void.

 

Constitutional Law for the win.

 

 

 

*double blink*

[Timmahh]

Hey Tim,  what time is the kick off meeting scheduled on the 13th?

I missed that info somehow.

 

People can start signing any time on Wednesday after 10am. 

 

We are planning for a 12 Noon Kick off Event.

 

If you can not make Lansing on Jan 13th, and would like to collect sigs in your county, or local location.. Please feel free to find a place to be, let us know where that is, and we will inform via social media all those interested, all locations they can sign at, if they can not make it to Lansing.

 

 

[Timmahh]

whats your source for these claims?

The Constitution, History, Previous Supreme Court Opinion.

 

but thats what i'm trying to say, 1a is now an exception to removing all laws against cannabis.

 

1a specifically allows for penalties on cannabis.

1 A specifically says Authorization must come from the Parent/Legal Guardian.   There are no allowed penalties for cannabis use under 1 and 1a, and 2 eliminates any 'potential' actionable offenses that would lead to any penalty.

[t-pain]

we hope the supreme court agrees with you tim.

[Timmahh]

 O boy.

 

Did you even take constitutional law in High school Tim?

 

Just stop while you're behind.

 

Seriously.  It is like you are using Sarah Palin logic there. A mish mash of mostly untrue or inapplicable partial points.

 

 I wish you the best on getting signatures.

 

 

 

 

 

 

It isn't read differently, it is just superior to statute law.

 

Oh it is very different in how Constitutional Language is defined, and how Legislative Law is defined.

 

The very fact you "Believe" it is the same highlights your error in concept of Constitutional Law.

 

And Yes, I did study Constitutional Law in High School if you must know. Also studied it in Middle School.  And in Grade School.

 

You see, while most kids were out playing with their Tonka Trucks and new Schwinns, I was reading the Federalist and Antifederalist papers. 

I also started reading John Locke (no known relation) when I was 8 yrs old.  Then Freud and Jung when I was 10. lmao.

[t-pain]

The Constitution, History, Previous Supreme Court Opinion.

i'd love to read the supreme court opinions on constitutional law. if you have some case names.

not important , just learning by reading. thanks for your time tim, i know you are busy.

[Timmahh]

well then be honest and upfront about abrogate killing off the MMMA , tim.

 

 

It does no such thing, only removes its Penalties and Limits. Unless making it a Moot Point for LEO to use it as a club is not important.

 

You have still offered no logical premise for your 'belief'.

 

Besides, if it did Kill the MMM Act, after the last 6 yrs, it would probably be a blessing.

 

The MMM Act is going to be just fine under Abrogate.

Maybe one of the 'attorneys' can detail it out.

 

[Timmahh]

Google is your friend.

Or you could just Read the Constitution, and learn the History. then you wouldn't need someone elses 'opinion' on it.

[+Malamute]

It shows. It shows you have a childs understanding.

[Timmahh]

It shows. It shows you have a childs understanding.

LMAO.. ok

[+Malamute]

Start with Marbury tpain.

[Timmahh]

Abrogate-

Petition to End the Prohibition of Cannabis in Michigan will be available for pick up Tomorrow at 4:20pm in Flint.

3553 S Dort Hwy 

Flint, MI 48507

 

dm2016bmlcmc@gmail.com

www.michican.us
 

[+Malamute]

Who Interprets the Constitution and on what basis and in what form in this country have we decided to allow civil or common law interpretive supremacy?

[+Malamute]

Start with Marbury tpain.

 

And that opinion will highlight one form of Constitutional interpretation.

[t-pain]

mmma protects bongs. abrogate, not so much.

[imiubu]

People can start signing any time on Wednesday after 10am. 

 

We are planning for a 12 Noon Kick off Event.

 

If you can not make Lansing on Jan 13th, and would like to collect sigs in your county, or local location.. Please feel free to find a place to be, let us know where that is, and we will inform via social media all those interested, all locations they can sign at, if they can not make it to Lansing.

 

 

 

Noon won't work for some of us.  Will it still be going on after 5 p.m.?

 

Some do not use social networking either

[t-pain]

thats why he included his email above, imiubu.

 

also he created a website for it, http://michican.us

 

if you want to sign the petition but cannot get out of the house, it can be mailed to you, then you can sign, maybe get a few friends/family/neighbors/postman to sign too, and then mail it back...

[phaquetoo]

All I can say is wow!

 

Realy good reading here people!

 

I admire the disagreements w/o name calling!

 

I dont want to have to read 4 pages next time I pop in here either,

 

I will keep up with this thread.

 

Thank you all for the info,

 

Peace and best of luck to all who seek legalization!

[t-pain]

looks like metro times doesnt have abrogate's back. too bad.

 

http://www.metrotimes.com/detroit/higher-ground-down-the-weed-rabbit-hole/Content?oid=2388742