Court invalidates $40K contract for marijuana

http://m.thedenverchannel.com/w/news-lo ... /70825873/

Regardless of where one stands on the "medical" marijuana laws, the citizens of this State, in an exercise of their right to establish the government which they wished to live under, made the dispensing and growing of this plant a legal activity for a limited purpose. As such, the courts of this State have an obligation to adjudicate according to the laws of the State.

The contract was between citizens of the same State regarding commerce which is legal according to State law and the courts created by the State to enforce its laws has an obligation to adjudicate according to the laws created for the government of the State of Colorado and its citizens. To do otherwise is to govern contrary to the consent of the governed, not in accordance with it.

Someday PrintSmith, maybe you will start posting in english. Your stilted style and lecturing tone turns people off even if they had an inclination to agree with you.

He reminds me of Prof. Charles W. Kingsfield Jr., and not in a good way.

His posts have a very elitist tone.

PS you need to dumb down your message for the Dems here. lol Monosyllabic and include more vulgarisms.

Monosyllabic = one syllable

vulgarisms = cuss words

Scalia set forth the standard giving the federal government complete preemption over marijuana commerce even intrastate in Gonzales v. Raich. The judge merely followed the supreme Court ruling.

FredHayek wrote: PS you need to dumb down your message for the Dems here. lol Monosyllabic and include more vulgarisms.

Maybe he just has to stop setting himself up as the final authority on every issue.
If PrintSmith is so damn smart that he and he alone has the definitive answer to every question, what the hell is he doing on our message board? I, for one, am sick and tired of his condescending attitude.

Something the Dog Said wrote: Scalia set forth the standard giving the federal government complete preemption over marijuana commerce even intrastate in Gonzales v. Raich. The judge merely followed the supreme Court ruling.

And in doing so destroyed the principle of contract law that has been handed down to us over the course of centuries. The people who are engaged in what the citizens of this State have proclaimed to be a legal business are being denied the protections of the laws under which they live as citizens of the State of Colorado. The contract was voluntarily entered into by both parties. The contract infringed upon the rights of no other person. The contract covered legal activities according to the laws of the State in which the contract was entered into. The purpose of having a government at all is to protect our liberty from being taken by force and fraud, not to permit force and fraud to occur while remaining idle.

The ruling means that the purveyors of these lawful businesses are without any legal protections whatsoever. Their landlords may violate their leases with impunity. The companies which they purchase health insurance from as a matter of contract, an activity which they are now required by federal law to engage in by the way, may invalidate those contracts as well under the same flawed premise by which this judge issued this ruling. Their businesses, which are licensed, taxed and regulated by State law, are wholly without any protection of the laws which they follow and under which they live as citizens of the State of Colorado. This ruling is an affront to the foundational principles upon which our system of government was built. It is yet one more indication that the federal government has been allowed to insert itself into areas it was never intended to enter or delegated power to oversee.

Do you want some meth with that MJ, Printsmith?

I was unaware that the citizens of Colorado had legalized the production and distribution of meth 2w. When did that occur? Or, more likely, are you attempting to introduce a herring of the color red into the discussion?