POLL: Rosenthal Wants A New Trial

[pmarkwell]

Ed has absolutely nothing to lose and everything to gain by continuing his legal right to have his day in court.. another day that is.

What DOES he has to lose? Maybe I didn't catch it, but what punishment has the feds infringed on Rosenthal?

Ed has a legitimate federal soap box to preach from.. I say, "Let him do it, power to him".

Neither here nor there, he gets to fuck with federal prosecutors and indirectly, the DEA while carrying a "get-out-of-jail-free card". I cannot imagine what could be more fun.

One thing I have learned is "[t]here is no such thing as bad publicity except your own obituary." (Brendan Behan Irish author & dramatist (1923 - 1964) There's humor here, but it makes sense. Any media coverage sparks interest and possible action in the topic.

I wish my dad was here he could tell you all about ed .. I don't know much about him .. only that he knows his Cannabis even a Nobel piece winer for it i think

^Rosenthal has never won a Nobel prize.

I work for the BLM as a conservationist, but, hey, if Al Gore can win a nobel peace prize...

 

[Smokin Moose]

^ you debate well.

 

[zolar]

if this was the trial that the judge muzzled the defendent that he/she couldn't
tell the jury he was registered and in compliance with his states medical MJ
program as a larger grower for a collective he should keep going
rights issue state and individual vs federal govt .....
? end of bill of rights

 

[Cherma]

If California was not one if not the most liberal states on medical marijuana, its production and consumption by mmj patients, i would vote no move on Ed, however since California is leading the forefront i say press on Ed.. and frick one day in jail on a trumped up beef, many other brothers and sisters would leave it alone where it stands. EDDDY we're "Movin on up to the South Side"

 

[madeski]

How could you not support Ed. He is a leader on the MMJ front and if Ed is successful, it will have further implications down the line for future MMJ cases. Way to go Ed!

 

[hood1]

To me it goes back to basic freedom. We as Americans should be free to do as we please as long as it hurts no one. Our freedom has been taken away I want them back!

 

[Cper]

Keep fighting!

 

[zolar]

i though free speech meant that ed could tell the jury judge and all that he was Enoch returned from walking with god in the whirlwind from all those years ago before the pyramids and it went in the record for the court..... regardless

 

[zolar]

perhaps Ed should file a petition with the supreme court that

his right to 1st amendment free speech and to 14 th due process

was denied when he was not allowed to tell the jury that he was in compliance with state laws on medical pot that bypassed the federal substance control laws that apparently have a sop to states right in allowing a substance that has state medical approval to be exempted for that particular approved use in that state

this really is a big constitutional issue as approval by state medical boards vs fed regulations

 

[StuntmanMike]

perhaps Ed should file a petition with the supreme court that

his right to 1st amendment free speech and to 14 th due process

was denied when he was not allowed to tell the jury that he was in compliance with state laws on medical pot that bypassed the federal substance control laws that apparently have a sop to states right in allowing a substance that has state medical approval to be exempted for that particular approved use in that state

this really is a big constitutional issue as approval by state medical boards vs fed regulations

The reason it was barred from the courtroom is that, in a Federal court, a State law is irrelevant. The REAL problem is with the Federal law against cannabis in the first place; Congress is only allowed to make laws directly from the Constitution and laws "necessary and proper." The states are supposed to have sovereignty for EVERYTHING ELSE. No mention of cannabis, gay marriage, or abortion in the Constitution = any Federal law against/for those is in direct conflict with the explicit rules for Federal law outlined in the Constitution.

The Constitution outlines Congress' powers in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. It reads as follows:

"Section 8: The Congress shall have power

To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;—And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

As you can see, there is absolutely NO mention of drugs whatsoever. Congress has no power to legislate against drugs (or anything else not listed above). The only laws Congress is allowed to make are those that are explicitly written, or are "necessary and proper for carrying into execution" those explicit powers. Some claim that MMJ is "interstate commerce," but I doubt Rosenthal would open himself up to more prosecution by dealing interstate. Some even go as far as claiming that simply using the interstate highways when moving the cannabis is "interstate commerce," even if you never leave your city.

This is why, when Obama champions "Change," I laugh because he won't change the way the actual government is run. People like Barr want to go back to how the Constitution was meant to be interpreted; The Federal government stays within its bounds as outlined in the Constitution (right now they don't, AT ALL), and all powers not delegated to the Fed. are left to the states. Reason being, if you don't like the laws in one state (in this case, MMJ laws), you can just up and move to another. As it is now, if you don't like the laws, you're fucked. You have to leave the entire COUNTRY in order to do what you want in the privacy of your own home, which is complete and utter bullshit.

As far as Rosenthal, what would he accomplish continuing to fight this? He's already served his one day in jail, what are they going to do, give him a credit for a day off early if he goes back? The only way I see it worth his time and effort is if the courts would return his 3,700 plants and pay for any damages and court costs. That won't happen, so what is the point?

 

[sdseeber]

he is trying to get another retrial because he wasnt allow to state his motive in court..his motive doesnt change the fact that he broke federal law...all hes doing is wasting taxpayers money...he shouldnt be fighting to get his charges dropped its pointless...he should be fighting to legalize Cannabis(i know thats what hes trying to do now but i mean with a more direct approach)