BUT, if Ohio is going to legalize production and distribution of marijuana, that's where the federal government gets involved. If the number of growers, dealers and traffickers increases in Ohio, so will the number of federal arrests -- assuming the justice department is allowed to do so.

The only thing preventing Federal prosecutions in certain states is a FEDERAL law (by way of Senate amendment) which withdrew funding for prosecutions. It only applies to specified states, and only applies to medical marijuana. Ohio is not listed in the current law, and is not listed in the proposed appropriation bill for FY 2017. The FY 2016 appropriations law ceases operation after September 30, 2016.

The House DOJ appropriations bill for 2017 (114 H.R. 5393) does not include the term marijuana.

The Senate DOJ appropriations bill for 2017 (114 S. 2837) includes the Senator Rohrabacher provision with addition states, not to include Ohio.

The Senate bill passed committee and was calendared in April 2016. The House bill passed committee and was calendared in June 2016.

- - - - - - - - - -

https://www.congress.gov/amendment/114th-congress/house-amendment/332

The Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment

- - - - - - - - - -

https://www.congress.gov/crec/2015/06/02/CREC-2015-06-02-pt1-PgH3700-2.pdf

CREC 2015-02-02

Amendment text at 3745

Debate at 3745-3747

Amendment Offered by Mr. Rohrabacher

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:

Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to any of the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin, or with respect to either the District of Columbia or Guam, to prevent any of them from implementing their own laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.

- - - - - - - - - -

Sec. 537 of the 2017 Senate appropriations bill for 2017 (S. 2837), at pp. 106-07 reads:

14 SEC. 537. None of the funds made available in this
15 Act to the Department of Justice may be used, with re-
16 spect to any of the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona,
17 California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida,
18 Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana,
19 Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
20 Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire,
21 New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina,
22 Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South
23 Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia,
24 Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, or with respect to
25 the District of Columbia, Guam, or Puerto Rico, to pre-

1 vent any of them from implementing their own laws that
2 authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation
3 of medical marijuana.

Section 538 at p. 107 applies to hemp and reads:

4 SEC. 538. None of the funds made available under
5 this Act may be used by the Department of Justice to
6 prevent a State from implementing its own State laws that
7 authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation
8 of industrial hemp, as defined in section 7606 of the Agri-
9 cultural Act of 2014 (7 U.S.C. 5940).

Ohio still is not there. The bill has not yet passed. It passed Senate committee and was calendared in April 2016.

https://www.congress.gov/search?q=%7B%22congress%22%3A%22114%22%2C%22source%22%3A%22legislation%22%2C%22search%22%3A%22S.%202837%22%7D

1. S.2837 — 114th Congress (2015-2016) Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017 Sponsor: Sen. Shelby, Richard C. [R-AL] (Introduced 04/21/2016) Cosponsors: (0) Committees: Senate - Appropriations Committee Reports: S. Rept. 114-239

Latest Action: 04/21/2016 Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 432. (All Actions)

- - - - - - - - - -

https://www.congress.gov/114/crpt/srpt239/CRPT-114srpt239.pdf

Senate Calendar #432, DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE AND JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2017

APRIL 21, 2016.—Ordered to be printed

Mr. SHELBY, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany S. 2837]

At p. 128:

Section 537 prohibits the Department of Justice from preventing
certain States from implementing State laws regarding the use of
medical marijuana.

Section 538 prohibits the use of funds by the Department of Justice
to prevent States from implementing laws related to a certain
section of the Agricultural Act of 2014.

- - - - - - - - - -

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/5393

The House bill is H.R.5393 — 114th Congress (2015-2016)

Latest Action: 06/07/2016 Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 471.

https://www.congress.gov/114/bills/hr5393/BILLS-114hr5393rh.pdf

A search of the House bill indicates it does not contain the term marijuana or marihuana.

https://www.congress.gov/114/crpt/hrpt605/CRPT-114hrpt605.pdf

CRPT-114hrpt605, House Committee Report on FY 2017 Appropriations for Commerce, DOJ and Sci (for HR 5393)

- - - - - - - - - -

A Congress.gov indicates no other current legislation includes the term marijuana.

- - - - - - - - - -

https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/Appropriations+for+Fiscal+Year+2017

Appropriations for FY 2017, status in congress.

- - - - - - - - - -

And their bosses, We The People, give the black robed tyrants the finger in our quest for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Gov bootlickers on the internet don't make illegal legislation, law.

The Legislature writes laws, the Courts say what the law is, they interpret is.

The government makes the laws, and they decide what is constitutional. Dopers on the internet do not.

Patriots who give the law the finger and currently in prison is great numbers for all sorts of things, including drugs.

Current law does not restrain Federal funding for protections in Ohio.

--- "The government makes the laws, and they decide what is constitutional."

Government legislators, under constitutional restraints, make the laws, and the SCOTUS issues opinions on constitutionality in contested cases, - opinions that are NOT law, and can be reversed.

Nolu hates our Constitution and our republican form of government.

Gov bootlickers on the internet don't make illegal legislation, law.

Too many of them have infested this site.

We The People, give the black robed tyrants the finger in our quest for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I give the finger to bleating sheep like Galin and nolu sham.

SCOTUS issues opinions on constitutionality in contested cases, - opinions that are NOT law, and can be reversed.

tpaine, Chief Justice of the Imaginary Patriot Supreme Court has spoken. It is obvious that when he speaks, nobody that matters listens.

SCOTUS and other courts use the term good law rather frequently. Either they are all wrong, or tpaine is wrong.

The tpaine pronouncement also implies that Westlaw and Lexis-Nexis do not know what they are doing or what they are talking about.

Precedential court holdings are good law. They remain good law until they are no longer good law.

tpaine has an amazing observation that SCOTUS opinions can be reversed. How true. And statute laws can be struck down, repealed, abrogated, or derogated. Any provision of the Constitution, including amendments, may be repealed. There is no law that cannot be changed or repealed.

- - - - - - - - - -

ABOUT GOOD LAW

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_law

Good law is the concept in jurisprudence that a legal decision is still valid. That is, that a decision has not been overturned (during an appeal) or otherwise rendered obsolete (such as by a change in the underlying law)

http://guides.libraries.uc.edu/c.php?g=222559&p=1472876

Remember, that you need to take into account the jurisdiction of your case and the cases citing your case in order to determine if your case is still good law.

http://help.lexisnexis.com/tabula-rasa/rosetta/iscasegoodlaw_hdi-task?lbu=GB&locale=en_GB&audience=legal

Case Overview uses signals to indicate what kind of treatment a case has received and whether it can be relied on as good law.

https://lawschool.westlaw.com/marketing/display/RE/10

A decision from an appellate court is binding on courts beneath it (inferior courts) when those courts decide similar issues. But your case law research does not end simply because you've found an appellate court case that appears to support your argument. Even a case directly on point may lose its authority if

• the decision is reversed or modified on appeal
• it is overruled, limited or otherwise called into doubt in subsequent appellate cases
• it is rendered moot by subsequent legislation

It is therefore necessary to verify the validity of any case you cite by checking its history and finding other cases that have cited it. Only after doing so can you rest assured that the cases supporting your argument are good law.

- - - - - - - - - -

GOOD LAW AT SCOTUS

Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997)

School Dist. of Grand Rapids v. Ball, 473 U.S. 373, addressing a "Shared Time" program, are no longer good law. Pp. 215-236. (a) Under Rufo, supra, at 384, Rule 60(b)(5) — which states that, "upon such terms … whether the Court's later Establishment Clause cases have so undermined Aguilar that it is no longer good law. Pp. 215-218. (b) To answer that question, it is necessary to understand the rationale upon which … ask that we explicitly recognize what our more recent cases already dictate: Aguilar is no longer good law.

- - - - - - - - - -

Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002)

… system in Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639 (1990), and had stated in Apprendi that Walton remained good law.

- - - - - - - - - -

Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364 (1993)

… argues that Collins v. Lockhart, 754 F.2d 258 (CA8), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1013 (1985), is still good law despite our decision in Lowenfield v. Phelps, 484 U.S. 231 (1988), and urges us to decide this question … certiorari," we decide that question based on the Eighth Circuit's view that Collins is no longer good law. Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc., 504 U.S. 451, 465-466, n. 10 (1992).

- - - - - - - - - -

Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004)

… this Court holding that a sentencing judge may consider virtually any reliable information still good law when juries, not judges, are required to determine the matter? See, e.g., United States v. Watts …

- - - - - - - - - -

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993

… questions: first, whether the rule of Frye v. United States, 54 App.D.C. 46, 293 F. 1013 (1923), remains good law after the enactment of the Federal Rules of Evidence; and second, if Frye remains valid, whether …

- - - - - - - - - -

Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996)

… held that persons advocating a certain practice may be denied the right to vote, it is no longer good law. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) (per curiam). To the extent it held that the groups designated … that polygamy can be criminalized, and those engaging in that crime deprived of the vote, remains good law.

- - - - - - - - - -

F. C. C. v. Fox Television Stations, 556 U.S. 502 (2009)

… indecent or would not be acted upon." It explicitly ruled that "any such interpretation is no longer good law." Ibid., ¶ 12. It "clarif[ied] . . . that the mere fact that specific words or phrases are not sustained … of inconsistent "prior Commission and staff action" and explicitly disavowing them as "no longer good law." Golden Globes Order, 19 FCC Rcd., at 4980, ¶ 12. To be sure, the (superfluous) explanation in … in light of the Golden Globes Order's specific declaration that its prior rulings were no longer good law, 19 FCC Rcd., at 4980, ¶ 12, and the Remand Order's disavowal of those staff rulings and Commission …

- - - - - - - - - -

Hedges v. U.S., 404 F.3d 744 (3d Cir. 2005)

… decisions in Irwin, Brockamp, and Beggerly, we hold that our prior holding in Bovell is no longer good law.

- - - - - - - - - -

Moses H. Cone Hospital v. Mercury Constr. Corp. 460 U.S. 1 (1983)

More importantly, however, the decision in Idlewild cannot be good law after Coopers, supra.

- - - - - - - - - -

Wright v. West, 505 U.S. 277 (1992)

Virginia's rule is reasonable, and has been accepted as good law against the backdrop of a general state sufficiency standard no less stringent than the Jackson … is the thief who took them, and it should come as no surprise that the rule had been accepted as good law against the backdrop of a general state sufficiency standard no less stringent than that of Jackson …

- - - - - - - - - -

Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992)

… rule in this area and the doctrine and principles of stare decisis indicate that the rule remains good law. Pp. 314-318. (d) The underlying issue here is one that Congress may be better qualified to resolve … conclusion that this evolution indicates that the Commerce Clause ruling of Bellas Hess is no longer good law.

- - - - - - - - - -

Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764 (1990)

… perverse for this Court to rely upon a Court of Appeals decision for a proposition that is no longer good law within the Circuit.

- - - - - - - - - -

I give the finger to bleating sheep like Galin and nolu sham.

Don't forget Congress and the courts. You give them hell just like tpaine. You take a few tokes, get on the internet, and tell them what the law really is. And they ignore you, unless you actually strut your bullshit in a real court.

I give the finger...

That is all your low intelligence level permits you to give....so typical of gutter trash.

I give the finger...

That is actually all the recognition that you and the other boot-licking statist, government worshiping whores here deserve.

Don't be a fucking hypocrite you disgusting scumbag - YOU posted an image of Jesus flipping the bird during one of your melt-downs over at Liberty Post when you and the other libertarian-fearing jackhole were slandering Ron Paul.

Fucking hypocritical, self-righteous piece of shit.

I give the finger...

That is actually all the recognition that you ...

It is unfortunate that is all you have to contribute.

Who the Hell is Ron Paulo?

It is unfortunate that is all you have to contribute.

Eat shit and die asshole.

The only thing you and your asshole canary clan contributes is displaying your fealty to the State and your submissive authority fetish.

Keep licking those jack-boots slave

You mean rather than petition Congress to change it? Can we do that with any law or just the laws you don't like?

Feel free; YOU go ahead and waste your life petitioning politicians who don't give a shit about you or liberty.

The time for that passed a couple decades ago, as Big Stupid Government passes pay-to-play laws in exchange for bribes faster than we can even begin to repeal them.

Time to start ignoring them; we had enough laws for a normal society a hundred years ago - since then most laws are purchased to benefit specific lobbies.

Ignore stupid laws from stupid government.

-- "The government makes the laws, and they decide what is constitutional."

Government legislators, under constitutional restraints, make the laws, and the SCOTUS issues opinions on constitutionality in contested cases, - opinions that are NOT law, and can be reversed.

Nolu hates our Constitution and our republican form of government.

Tpaine, Chief Justice of the Imaginary Patriot Supreme Court has spoken. It is obvious that when he speaks, nobody that matters listens. --- SCOTUS and other courts use the term good law rather frequently. Either they are all wrong, or tpaine is wrong. --- The tpaine pronouncement also implies that Westlaw and Lexis- Nexis do not know what they are doing or what they are talking about.

Both publications are creatures of our legal 'system', which is totally compromised by socialistic law schools, which you have obviously never attended, -- poor soul.

Precedential court holdings are good law. They remain good law until they are no longer good law.

Good law for the big govt establishment, and its bootlickers, like you, nolu.

tpaine has an amazing observation that SCOTUS opinions can be reversed. How true. And statute laws can be struck down, repealed, abrogated, or derogated. Any provision of the Constitution, including amendments, may be repealed. There is no law that cannot be changed or repealed.

Correct, except for your opinion about the basic principles and amendments to our Constitution. Our fundamental rights CANNOT be repealed. -- Your opinion that they can, -- outs you once again as a pathetic socialistic fascist.

Thanks.

Ohio, with it's once great but now withering cities like Cleveland, Youngstown, Toledo, Dayton and Cincinnati will become a haven for drugged worthless fools. It's a short step from 'medical' weed to weed for everybody! The nation will continue its collapse into the swampy mire of drug culture.

Keep an eye on the Philippines and it's new president who has copied a page from Singapore's playbook. He has ordered troops into drug zones and so far has executed over 2,500 druggies. I hope that America doesn't have to go through that in order to clean up it's burgeoning drug addiction.

Good law for the big govt establishment, and its bootlickers, like you, nolu.

All the courts are wrong and we derive our laws from internet crackpots like you. Suuuure we do.

we derive our laws from internet crackpots like you

"jury of your peers".

Yes your fate is in the hands of us, your fellow internet crackpot peers.

tpaine has an amazing observation that SCOTUS opinions can be reversed. How true. And statute laws can be struck down, repealed, abrogated, or derogated. Any provision of the Constitution, including amendments, may be repealed. There is no law that cannot be changed or repealed.

Correct, except for your opinion about the basic principles and amendments to our Constitution. Our fundamental rights CANNOT be repealed. -- Your opinion that they can, -- outs you once again as a pathetic socialistic fascist pawn.

Thanks.

All the courts are wrong and we derive our laws from internet crackpots like you. Suuuure we do.

Your sarcastic, but meaningless, babbling is noted, nolu. -- Now, -- go find some more opinionated spam you can use to avoid rational discourse.

"jury of your peers".

Yes your fate is in the hands of us, your fellow internet crackpot peers.

Ignorance is bliss.

In the MEDICAL MARIJUANA case of Brandon Coats v. DISH Network, LLC in Colorado, the jury did not say anything. The Court upheld a motion to dismiss the Coats' suit for failure to state a claim.

The trial Court noted that, "The court cannot grant a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that no set of facts can prove that the plaintiff is entitled to relief."

The Court concluded that, "Because the Court finds that use of marijuana, even where such use is in full compliance with Colorado's Medical Marijuana Amendment, is not a lawful activity, Plaintiff's Complaint must be dismissed pursuant to C.R.C.P. 12(b)(5) for failure to state a claim."

Brandon Coats was fired and he stayed fired. How did your happy horseshit work out for Brandon Coats?

Our fundamental rights CANNOT be repealed.

Any part of the Constitution can be repealed. Such action does depend upon the approval of any crackpot on the internet.

so far has executed over 2,500 accused by some of being druggies.

Fixed it.

I hope that America doesn't have to go through that

In America we don't do extrajudicial executions - thank God.

Our fundamental rights CANNOT be repealed. They are inalienable, thus any attempt to repeal them would be null and void from inception.

-- Your opinion that they can, -- outs you once again as a pathetic socialistic fascist pawn.

Any part of the Constitution can be repealed. Such action does depend upon the approval of any crackpot on the internet.

Your fiat 'decree' makes you to be that crackpot.

Thanks.

Any part of the Constitution can be repealed.

What a strange and outright bizarre consideration to suggest.

Our fundamental rights CANNOT be repealed. They are inalienable, thus any attempt to repeal them would be null and void from inception.

There are no inalienable rights. Amdt 5 explicitly provides for capital punishment. When they execute some halfwit like you, they take away your supposedly inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit happiness. The only thing you can pursue is a dirt nap.

The Constitution is the highest law. The Declaration of Independence has never been a law.

Damn, you truly are bone stupid.

In America we don't do extrajudicial executions - thank God.

Before it's all over, America will be clamoring for 'judicial' but swift executions of all who sell drugs! Users get six months to change their habits and if they don't they get to join the rat who sold them the poison.

No drug problems in Singapore and problems being drastically reduced in the Philippines.

There are no inalienable rights. Amdt 5 explicitly provides for capital punishment.

Only halfwit like you would think that the 5th Amendment allows capital punishment except in criminal or treasonous cases, --- where, upon conviction, the accused is deemed to have forfeited their otherwise inalienable rights.

When they execute some halfwit like you, they take away your supposedly inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit happiness. The only thing you can pursue is a dirt nap. --- The Constitution is the highest law. The Declaration of Independence has never been a law.

Never have claimed the Declaration is law, seeing that is an outline of our principles.

You, obviously, have no principles, poor soul.

Before it's all over, America will be clamoring for 'judicial' but swift executions of all who sell drugs! Users get six months to change their habits and if they don't they get to join the rat who sold them the poison.

By all means, let's do away with the presumption of innocence, due process...hey what the hell, why not do away with the 4th amendment...

Yes, let's become like the other third world nations and execute dealers and stoners all in the name of the glorious war on drugs.

How a bout putting a bounty on potheads?

I'm sure there are a few here who would relish the idea.

On second thought, since you seem to admire authoritarian societies, why don't you move to Singapore or the Philippines?

No drug problems in Singapore and problems being drastically reduced in the Philippines.

Not a whole lot of problems in Portugal either.

What happened when Portugal decriminalized drugs

In July 2001, Portugal decriminalized all drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, and heroin.

The possession of small quantities of those drugs was shifted to a public health — rather than criminal — issue.

Rather than getting arrested for a small amount, you get sent to a "dissuasion commission" where a doctor, lawyer, and social worker prescribe treatment or give you a fine.

Mic's Zeeshan Aleem reports that people walk away without a penalty most of the time. 

Here's what the data says about Portugal's decriminalization:  

• Drug-related HIV infections have plummeted by over 90% since 2001, according to the drug policy think tank Transform. 

• Drug-related deaths in Portugal are the second-lowest in the European Union. Just 3 in a million people die of overdoses there, compared with the EU average of 17.3 per million. 

• The number of adults who have done drugs in the past year has decreased steadily since 2001. 

• Compared to rest of the EU, young people in Portugal now use the least amount of "legal high" drugs like synthetic marijuana, which are especially dangerous. 

• The percentage of drug-related offenders in Portuguese prisons fell from 44% in 1999 to 21% in 2012. 

• The number of people in drug treatment increased 60% from 1998 to 2011, from 23,600 to 38,000. 

The new Philippine president has sent the army into the hinterlands to shoot the drug trade rats on sight! The drug epidemic dictates that extreme measures are the only way to combat this infection.

Before it's all over, America will be clamoring for 'judicial' but swift executions of all who sell drugs!

No they won't - drugs and drug sellers have been around for generations now, but only a rabid fringe is worked up about them.

The drug epidemic dictates that extreme measures are the only way to combat this infection.

Hysterical nonsense - almost twice as many people die of influenza and pneumonia as from opioid overdose, but neither you nor anyone else is calling for "extreme measures" there.

Our fundamental rights CANNOT be repealed. They are inalienable, thus any attempt to repeal them would be null and void from inception.

No constitutional body is empowered to hold a constitutional amendment to be unconstitutional.

There are no rights that cannot be taken away.

Only halfwit like you would think that the 5th Amendment allows capital punishment except in criminal or treasonous cases, --- where, upon conviction, the accused is deemed to have forfeited their otherwise inalienable rights.

What does inalienable mean to you?????

You have CONSTITUTIONAL rights, alienable and inalienable. You can waive your alienable constitutional rights. You cannot waive your inalienable constitutional rights.

Alienable constitutional rights. Right to a trial by jury, to counsel, and not to incriminate one's self, and related matters are "alienable constitutional rights" which may be waived whenever assertable. Weck v. District Court of Second Judicial Dist., 158 Colo. 521, 408 P.2d 987, 990. See also inalienable rights.

Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.

Unalienable. Inalienable; incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred.

Inalienable rights. Rights which can never be abridged because they are so fundamental.

Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.

INALIENABLE RIGHTS fundamental rights, including the right to practice religion, freedom of speech, due process, and equal protection of the laws, that cannot be transferred to another nor surrendered except by the person possessing them.

Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed., Steven H. Gifis

When the government takes away your rights, or holds them forfeit, you neither transfer them nor surrender them. They take them. In capital punishment, they take your life. As you document so well, it does not mean rights that can only be taken away by God.

upon conviction, the accused is deemed to have forfeited their otherwise inalienable rights.

So, there are criminal convictions and otherwise inalienable rights.

News flash. Military trials and tribunals are criminal proceedings.

In a court-martial, you do not get a jury of your peers, you get a panel appointed by the convening authority. It does not take a unanimous decision to throw your ass in prison, taking away your otherwise inalienable right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, a two-thirds majority does just fine.

In a summary court-martial, you normally do not have a right to a detained attorney. A summary court-martial is a one-officer court, and he may, or may not, be a lawyer.

If you are a USN sailor on a ship at sea, the Captain at an Article 15 proceeding may impose a reduction in grade, forfeiture of pay, or restriction on liberty. He can even award bread and water. You have no right to demand trial. Your otherwise inalienable rights are subject to hazard, without a lawyer and without a trial. The CO says you did whatever and awards punishment.

And then there is conscription. "Greetings, etc." may be considered an impingement on one's liberty. Refusal to serve may result in prison time and other undesirable things, otherwise inalienable rights notwithstanding.

The contention that the people are prohibited from amending the laws any which way they determine that they want, is the ultimate douchebaggery. The people may adopt any laws and government of their choosing. The people need not obtain prior consent of internet wingnuts.

The only current limitation set by Article 5 is "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." Article 5 can be admended to remove that one restriction if the people so choose.

The largest mass execution in the United States followed a military tribunal of indians. Thirty-eight were executed at one time by hanging.

Text of Order to General Sibley, St. Paul Minnesota:

"Ordered that of the Indians and Half-breeds sentenced to be hanged by the military commission, composed of Colonel Crooks, Lt. Colonel Marshall, Captain Grant, Captain Bailey, and Lieutenant Olin, and lately sitting in Minnesota, you cause to be executed on Friday the nineteenth day of December, instant, the following names, to wit ...

The other condemned prisoners you will hold subject to further orders, taking care that they neither escape, nor are subjected to any unlawful violence.

Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States"

The hanging, following trials which condemned over three hundred participants in the 1862 Dakota Conflict, stands as the largest mass execution in American history. Number 2 is the half-dozen hanged in an elevator shaft at Leavenworth during WW2.

On September 28, 1862, Colonel Sibley appointed a five-member military commission to "try summarily" Dakota and mixed-bloods for "murder and other outrages" committed against Americans. Whether Sibley had authority to appoint such a commission is a matter of substantial dispute. The commission was convened immediately, meeting in La Bathe's log kitchen near Camp Release. Sixteen trials were conducted the first day... in the six weeks that followed, the military court would try a total of 393 cases, convicting 323 and sentencing 303 to death by hanging.

The commission heard nearly forty cases on November 3, the last day it met.

In April, 1863, Congress enacted a law providing for the forcible removal from Minnesota of all Sioux.

On March 22, 1866, President Andrew Johnson ordered the release of the 177 surviving prisoners.

Case 238: Ta-hoh-pe-wa-kan

[The complete record of testimony follows.]

Prisoner states-- I went with a party which pick up things which the whites left behind.

Louis LaBelle being sworn says-- The prisoner was among those who were on horseback in the battle referred to in case 236-- He had a horse and was up on it when I saw him, belonging to the soldiers. (See case No. 236)

[Ta-hoh-pe-wa-kan was found guilty and was sentenced to be hanged.]

There are no inalienable rights. Amdt 5 explicitly provides for capital punishment.

Only halfwit like you would think that the 5th Amendment allows capital punishment except in criminal or cases of treason. --- where, upon conviction, the accused is deemed to have forfeited their otherwise inalienable rights.

When they execute some halfwit like you, they take away your supposedly inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit happiness. The only thing you can pursue is a dirt nap. --- The Constitution is the highest law. The Declaration of Independence has never been a law.

I never have claimed the Declaration is law, seeing that is an outline of our principles.

You, obviously, have no principles, poor soul.

No constitutional body is empowered to hold a constitutional amendment to be unconstitutional.

True enough, -- congrats on your temporary sanity.

There are no rights that cannot be taken away.

There you go again, hyping the fact that criminal acts can lead to a forfit of rights.

Only halfwit like you would think that the 5th Amendment allows capital punishment except in criminal or treasonous cases, --- where, upon conviction, the accused is deemed to have forfeited their otherwise inalienable rights.

What does inalienable mean to you???? -- You have CONSTITUTIONAL rights, alienable and inalienable. You can waive your alienable constitutional rights. You cannot waive your inalienable constitutional rights. --- Alienable constitutional rights. Right to a trial by jury, to counsel, and not to incriminate one's self, and related matters are "alienable constitutional rights" which may be waived whenever assertable. Weck v. District Court of Second Judicial Dist., 158 Colo. 521, 408 P.2d 987, 990. See also inalienable rights. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. ----- Unalienable. Inalienable; incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred. --- Inalienable rights. Rights which can never be abridged because they are so fundamental. ---- Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. --- INALIENABLE RIGHTS fundamental rights, including the right to practice religion, freedom of speech, due process, and equal protection of the laws, that cannot be transferred to another nor surrendered except by the person possessing them. Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed., Steven H. Gifis

So you admit that, legalisticly, there are inalienable rights..

When the government takes away your rights, or holds them forfeit, you neither transfer them nor surrender them. They take them. In capital punishment, they take your life.

Thanks for conceding my point.

As you document so well, it does not mean rights that can only be taken away by God.

I'm agnostic. I've never proposed that any 'God' has anything to do with our rights. -- You're playing the worse kind of word games. -- PLEASE STOP

Upon conviction, the accused is deemed to have forfeited their otherwise inalienable rights. So, there are criminal convictions and otherwise inalienable rights. --- News flash. Military trials and tribunals are criminal proceedings. --- In a court-martial, you do not get a jury of your peers, you get a panel appointed by the convening authority. It does not take a unanimous decision to throw your ass in prison, taking away your otherwise inalienable right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, a two-thirds majority does just fine.-- - In a summary court-martial, you normally do not have a right to a detained attorney. A summary court-martial is a one- officer court, and he may, or may not, be a lawyer. --- If you are a USN sailor on a ship at sea, the Captain at an Article 15 proceeding may impose a reduction in grade, forfeiture of pay, or restriction on liberty. He can even award bread and water. You have no right to demand trial. Your otherwise inalienable rights are subject to hazard, without a lawyer and without a trial. The CO says you did whatever and awards punishment. --- And then there is conscription. "Greetings, etc." may be considered an impingement on one's liberty. Refusal to serve may result in prison time and other undesirable things, otherwise inalienable rights notwithstanding.

I'm well aware of the temporary suspension of rights while in the military, having served three years. I'd bet you haven't served, and would not, --- even if the draft was reinstated because of a national emergency.

The contention that the people are prohibited from amending the laws any which way they determine that they want, is the ultimate douchebaggery.

Not true. As you admitted just above, we all have fundamental inalienable rights that cannot be amended away.

The people may adopt any laws and government of their choosing. The people need not obtain prior consent of internet wingnuts. --- The only current limitation set by Article 5 is "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." Article 5 can be admended to remove that one restriction if the people so choose. ---- The largest mass execution in the United States followed a military tribunal of indians. Thirty-eight were executed at one time by hanging. --- Text of Order to General Sibley, St. Paul Minnesota: --- I "Ordered that of the Indians and Half-breeds sentenced to be hanged by the military commission, composed of Colonel Crooks, Lt. Colonel Marshall, Captain Grant, Captain Bailey, and Lieutenant Olin, and lately sitting in Minnesota, you cause to be executed on Friday the nineteenth day of December, instant, the following names, to wit ... The other condemned prisoners you will hold subject to further orders, taking care that they neither escape, nor are subjected to any unlawful violence. ---- Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States" --- The hanging, following trials which condemned over three hundred participants in the 1862 Dakota Conflict, stands as the largest mass execution in American history. Number 2 is the half-dozen hanged in an elevator shaft at Leavenworth during WW2. ----- On September 28, 1862, Colonel Sibley appointed a five-member military commission to "try summarily" Dakota and mixed- bloods for "murder and other outrages" committed against Americans. Whether Sibley had authority to appoint such a commission is a matter of substantial dispute. The commission was convened immediately, meeting in La Bathe's log kitchen near Camp Release. Sixteen trials were conducted the first day... in the six weeks that followed, the military court would try a total of 393 cases, convicting 323 and sentencing 303 to death by hanging. ----- The commission heard nearly forty cases on November 3, the last day it met. ----- In April, 1863, Congress enacted a law providing for the forcible removal from Minnesota of all Sioux. ---- On March 22, 1866, President Andrew Johnson ordered the release of the 177 surviving prisoners. ---- Case 238: Ta-hoh-pe-wa-kan --- [The complete record of testimony follows.] ---- Prisoner states-- I went with a party which pick up things which the whites left behind. ---- Louis LaBelle being sworn says-- The prisoner was among those who were on horseback in the battle referred to in case 236-- He had a horse and was up on it when I saw him, belonging to the soldiers. (See case No. 236) ---- [Ta-hoh-pe-wa-kan was found guilty and was sentenced to be hanged.]

You just can't stop spamming this forum, can you? YOUR LAST PARAGRAPH ABOVE IS SHEER SPAM..

You are one sick puppy. I pity you. Get help.

So one idiotic gaggle of people hedonistically satisfying themselves by endangering the rest of us should be 'allowed to do what they want' causing endangerment to others? I don't think so. There are 'some' things to be admired about you Libertarians, but this stand is certainly not one of them.

This society can't take much more of excesses.

'almost twice as many people die of influenza and pneumonia as from opioid overdose, but neither you nor anyone else is calling for "extreme measures" there.'

Drugged up potheads on the highways and in positions where they are controlling the lives of others, like engineers on trains, pilots, school bus drivers, etc. etc. etc.

We address driving etc. under the influence of the drug alcohol without resorting to any "extreme measures" - we can and should do likewise with respect to other drugs.

This society can't take much more of excesses.

What makes you think so?

And isn't executing marijuana users an excess? ("if they [users] don't [change their habits] they get to join the rat who sold them the poison")

What does inalienable mean to you?????

You have CONSTITUTIONAL rights, alienable and inalienable. You can waive your alienable constitutional rights. You cannot waive your inalienable constitutional rights.

Alienable constitutional rights. Right to a trial by jury, to counsel, and not to incriminate one's self, and related matters are "alienable constitutional rights" which may be waived whenever assertable. Weck v. District Court of Second Judicial Dist., 158 Colo. 521, 408 P.2d 987, 990. See also inalienable rights.

Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.

Unalienable. Inalienable; incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred.

Inalienable rights. Rights which can never be abridged because they are so fundamental.

Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.

INALIENABLE RIGHTS fundamental rights, including the right to practice religion, freedom of speech, due process, and equal protection of the laws, that cannot be transferred to another nor surrendered except by the person possessing them.

Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed., Steven H. Gifis

When the government takes away your rights, or holds them forfeit, you neither transfer them nor surrender them. They take them. In capital punishment, they take your life. As you document so well, it does not mean rights that can only be taken away by God.

[tpaine] So you admit that, legalisticly, there are inalienable rights..

When the government takes away your rights, or holds them forfeit, you neither transfer them nor surrender them. They take them. In capital punishment, they take your life.

[tpaine] Thanks for conceding my point.

There are alienable CONSTITUTIONAL rights, and there are inalienable CONSTITUTIONAL rights as defined above.

They have nothing to do with your mythical inalienable GOD-GIVEN rights which cannot be taken away (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). Those do not exist in U.S. law. You can get a passport and seek out an ecclesiastical court.

If your point is that you have inalienable CONSTITUTIONAL rights as defined in legal dictionaries, I provided you with the definition to drag you out of ancient times.

As for the government taking away your rights, you admit that it does not mean the government cannot take them away, it means that you cannot trasnfer them or give them away.

I'm agnostic. I've never proposed that any 'God' has anything to do with our rights. -- You're playing the worse kind of word games. -- PLEASE STOP

You have given a never ending invocation of the Declaration of Independence. You know, the one that goes, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...."

Your whole insane argument that a Constitutional Amendment can be struck down as unconstitutional must, of necessity, appeal to some higher power than the Constitution. What is it? Your Imaginary Patriot Court where you sit as Chief Justice?

[nolu chan #15] Any provision of the Constitution, including amendments, may be repealed. There is no law that cannot be changed or repealed.

[tpaine #24] Correct, except for your opinion about the basic principles and amendments to our Constitution. Our fundamental rights CANNOT be repealed.

Repeated ad nauseam, e.g., [tpaine #37] Our fundamental rights CANNOT be repealed. They are inalienable, thus any attempt to repeal them would be null and void from inception.

Your version of inalienable is bullshit, pulled out of your ass. Identify some of these rights that cannot be repealed by Constitutional amendment. If a Constitutional Amendment may be declared null and void, who has the lawful power to declare a provision of the Constitution null and void? What is your source of higher law?

News flash. Military trials and tribunals are criminal proceedings.

In a court-martial, you do not get a jury of your peers, you get a panel appointed by the convening authority. It does not take a unanimous decision to throw your ass in prison, taking away your otherwise inalienable right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, a two-thirds majority does just fine.

In a summary court-martial, you normally do not have a right to a detained attorney. A summary court-martial is a one-officer court, and he may, or may not, be a lawyer.

If you are a USN sailor on a ship at sea, the Captain at an Article 15 proceeding may impose a reduction in grade, forfeiture of pay, or restriction on liberty. He can even award bread and water. You have no right to demand trial. Your otherwise inalienable rights are subject to hazard, without a lawyer and without a trial. The CO says you did whatever and awards punishment.

And then there is conscription. "Greetings, etc." may be considered an impingement on one's liberty. Refusal to serve may result in prison time and other undesirable things, otherwise inalienable rights notwithstanding.

I'm well aware of the temporary suspension of rights while in the military, having served three years. I'd bet you haven't served, and would not, --- even if the draft was reinstated because of a national emergency.

There is no temporary suspension of rights while in the military.Try reading the Constitution instead of pulling this shit out out your ass, you ignorant shithead. I am not surprised that you were in the service and don't know shit about military law and military rights.

There is no constitutional right to counsel at a Summary Court-Martial under either the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, or the Fifth Amendment due process clause. Of course, there is no right to counsel at an Article 15 proceeding either. Such right does not exist, and your imaginary right is not suspended. You are truly one ignorant whack job.

The Congress shall have power ... To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.

U.S. Const., Art. 1, Sec. 8, Cl. 13.

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.

U.S. Const., Art. 1, Sec. 8, Cl. 18.

The U.C.M.J is federal statute, found at 10 U.S.C. §§ 801-946.

The Manual for Courts-Martial has the force of law and is issued by the President pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 836, UCMJ Art. 36, President may prescribe rules.

I'd bet you haven't served, and would not, --- even if the draft was reinstated because of a national emergency.

What an ignorant fuckwit you are. Apparently, the only hashmark you had was on your skivvies. nolu chan, USN (Ret.)

Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. --- INALIENABLE RIGHTS fundamental rights, including the right to practice religion, freedom of speech, due process, and equal protection of the laws, that cannot be transferred to another nor surrendered except by the person possessing them. Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed., Steven H. Gifis

So you admit that, legalisticly, there are inalienable rights..

Thanks for conceding my point.

You have given a never ending invocation of the Declaration of Independence. You know, the one that goes, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...." ---- Your whole insane argument that a Constitutional Amendment can be struck down as unconstitutional must, of necessity, appeal to some higher power than the Constitution.

I'm agnostic. I've never proposed that any 'God' has anything to do with our rights. -- You're playing the worse kind of word games. -- And your increasingly foul mouthed response makes it evident that you know, but that's the best you can do..

Your version of inalienable is bullshit, pulled out of your ass. Identify some of these rights that cannot be repealed by Constitutional amendment.

How weird, as you did, just above. Getting rattled, aintcha?

If a Constitutional Amendment may be declared null and void, who has the lawful power to declare a provision of the Constitution null and void? What is your source of higher law?

We the people will just ignore such amendments, as we did booze prohibition.

Military trials and tribunals are criminal proceedings. In a court-martial, you do not get a jury of your peers, you get a panel appointed by the convening authority. It does not take a unanimous decision to throw your ass in prison, taking away your otherwise inalienable right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, a two-thirds majority does just fine. --- In a summary court-martial, you normally do not have a right to a detained attorney. A summary court-martial is a one-officer court, and he may, or may not, be a lawyer.--- If you are a USN sailor on a ship at sea, the Captain at an Article 15 proceeding may impose a reduction in grade, forfeiture of pay, or restriction on liberty. He can even award bread and water. You have no right to demand trial. Your otherwise inalienable rights are subject to hazard, without a lawyer and without a trial. The CO says you did whatever and awards punishment. ---- And then there is conscription. "Greetings, etc." may be considered an impingement on one's liberty. Refusal to serve may result in prison time and other undesirable things, otherwise inalienable rights notwithstanding.

I'm well aware of the temporary suspension of rights while in the military, having served three years. I'd bet you haven't served, and would not, --- even if the draft was reinstated because of a national emergency.

There is no temporary suspension of rights while in the military.Try reading the Constitution instead of pulling this shit out out your ass, you ignorant shithead.---- What an ignorant fuckwit you are. Apparently, the only hashmark you had was on your skivvies. nolu chan, USN (Ret)

Very well, you claim to have retired from the navy. No doubt as an officer, correct? -- That's what most of you phonies claim, so forgive my doubt. -- Your lack of any sort of honor, or respect for constitutional law, leads me to this conclusion..

Too much drugs.

I've answered you on this, but it would appear that the only way the drug lords south of the border and the drug-selling pimps in America will dry up is by executing them in large numbers.

Would a Bigger Police State Win the Drug War?

Most everyone would agree that China is not a free society. It is ruled by a brutal communist regime, one that has absolutely no regard for civil liberties and such criminal-justice principles as due process of law, trial by jury, right to counsel, and habeas corpus. When the state wants to go after someone, there are no institutional barriers that stand in its way.

China has something else: the war on drugs, the same war that the U.S. government has been waging for decades.

According to an article in the New York Times, despite a fierce, unrelenting war waged against drugs, drug use in China remains as big a problem as ever.

Why is that important to Americans?

Two reasons.

One, it shows that drug laws are part and parcel of tyrannical regimes. It is only in genuinely free societies that people are free to ingest any substance they want without being punished by the state for it.

In other words, the United States has the same type of governmental program as the brutal and tyrannical communist regime in China.

Two, the China experience shows Americans that no matter how much more the federal government were to crack down in the war on drugs, it wouldn’t make any difference whatsoever. People would continue to ingest drugs, even while a large percentage of them were being incarcerated or otherwise punished.

In other words, if the U.S. government were to impose the same type of totalitarian police state as China as part of the war on drugs, it would destroy freedom without achieving the desired result.

Fearing execution under the new and tough president Rodrigo Duterte’s rule, at least a thousand drug pushers and users have surrendered themselves to police across Philippines over the past four days to sign a pledge to stop trading and using illegal drugs.

'We address driving etc. under the influence of the drug alcohol without resorting to any "extreme measures" - we can and should do likewise with respect to other drugs.'

Did you see the photo of the car pulled to the side of the road with a toddler in the backseat, while his grandmother and friend were in a state of unconsciousness in the front seat.

Too much drugs.

Nonresponsive.

"despite a fierce, unrelenting war waged against drugs, drug use in China remains as big a problem as ever."

Wouldn't this work? Something dramatic rather than the namby-pamby crap our central government dishes out.

Wow, even China isn't tyrannical enough for you. Scary.

[tpaine #49] Our fundamental rights CANNOT be repealed. They are inalienable, thus any attempt to repeal them would be null and void from inception.

According to the the wingnut tpaine who is incapable of identifying who is empowered to declare a constitutional amendment unconstitutional.

[tpaine #49] I'm agnostic. I've never proposed that any 'God' has anything to do with our rights.

Your idiotic version of inalienable rights has been repeatedly cited to the Declaration of Independence for years. That is the one that goes, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...."

You are free to doubt that the Creator who grants those rights exists. Constitutional rights were not granted by "the Creator."

You are unable to rationally discuss CONSTITUTIONAL rights.

If a Constitutional Amendment may be declared null and void, who has the lawful power to declare a provision of the Constitution null and void? What is your source of higher law?

We the people will just ignore such amendments, as we did booze prohibition.

Efforts to have the 18th Amendment declared unconstitutional FAILED spectacularly. Another amendment was required to repeal it.

The wingnut fantasy that a part of the Constitution is null and void because people choose to violate it is nonsense.

[tpaine #43] I'm well aware of the temporary suspension of rights while in the military, having served three years.

News flash. Military trials and tribunals are criminal proceedings.

In a court-martial, you do not get a jury of your peers, you get a panel appointed by the convening authority. It does not take a unanimous decision to throw your ass in prison, taking away your otherwise inalienable right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, a two-thirds majority does just fine.

In a summary court-martial, you normally do not have a right to a detained attorney. A summary court-martial is a one-officer court, and he may, or may not, be a lawyer.

If you are a USN sailor on a ship at sea, the Captain at an Article 15 proceeding may impose a reduction in grade, forfeiture of pay, or restriction on liberty. He can even award bread and water. You have no right to demand trial. Your otherwise inalienable rights are subject to hazard, without a lawyer and without a trial. The CO says you did whatever and awards punishment.

And then there is conscription. "Greetings, etc." may be considered an impingement on one's liberty. Refusal to serve may result in prison time and other undesirable things, otherwise inalienable rights notwithstanding.

[tpaine #49] I'm well aware of the temporary suspension of rights while in the military, having served three years. I'd bet you haven't served, and would not, --- even if the draft was reinstated because of a national emergency.

You are a fucking idiot. There is no temporary suspension.

Very well, you claim to have retired from the navy. No doubt as an officer, correct? -- That's what most of you phonies claim, so forgive my doubt. -- Your lack of any sort of honor, or respect for constitutional law, leads me to this conclusion..

As with all other claims, your speculative imaginary bullshit is as inaccurate as your other lightweight bullshit. You have proven again and again that you are too dumb, stupid and ignorant to comprehend the Constitution. But you never stop displaying your ignorance for all to see.

[tpaine #49] Getting rattled, aintcha?

I never get rattled from playing with my favorite pet plant. Out of kindness, I water you from time to time.

A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court stated:

The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false....

Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2, 120-21 (1866).

There is the tpaine Court of Imaginary Bullshit, and there is the U.S. Supreme Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court says that a Summary Court-Martial can take away rights of liberty and property, and no lawyer need be provided. The U.S. Supreme Court further says that the presiding officer acts as judge, factfinder, prosecutor, and defense counsel.

There is no such thing as the constitutional rights of service members being "temporarily suspended" while in the military. That is just more of your abysmally uninformed, ignorant bullshit.

Your juvenile belief that constitutional amendments may be declared unconstitutional affirms that you either in your second childhood, or that you never escaped the first.

U.S. Supreme Court

Middendorf v. Henry, 425 U.S. 25 (1976)

Syllabus at 425 U.S. 26:

Held:

1. There is no Sixth Amendment right to counsel in a summary court-martial....

2. Nor does the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment require that counsel be provided the accused in a summary court-martial proceeding.

Opinion of the Court at 425 U.S. 31-32:

Special courts-martial may award a bad-conduct discharge, up to six months' confinement at hard labor, forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for six months, and, in the case of an enlisted member, reduction to the lowest pay grade, Art.19, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 819. Article 15 punishment, conducted personally by the accused's commanding officer, is an administrative method of dealing with the most minor offenses. Parker v. Levy, 417 U. S. 733, 417 U. S. 750 (1974).

Opinion of the Court at 425 U.S. 32:

The summary court-martial occupies a position between informal nonjudicial disposition under Art. 15 and the courtroom-type procedure of the general and special courts-martial. Its purpose, "is to exercise justice promptly for relatively minor offenses under a simple form of procedure." Manual for Courts-Martial 79a (1969) (MCM). It is an informal proceeding conducted by a single commissioned officer with jurisdiction only over noncommissioned officers and other enlisted personnel. Art. 20, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 820. The presiding officer acts as judge, factfinder, prosecutor, and defense counsel. The presiding officer must inform the accused of the charges and the name of the accuser and call all witnesses whom he or the accused desires to call.

Id. at 33-34:

The question of whether an accused in a court-martial has a constitutional right to counsel has been much debated, [Footnote 12] and never squarely resolved. See Reid v. Covert, 354 U. S. 1, 354 U. S. 37 (1957). Dicta in Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, 71 U. S. 123 (1866), said that

"the framers of the Constitution, doubtless, meant to limit the right of trial by jury, in the sixth amendment to those persons who were subject to indictment or presentment in the fifth."

In Ex parte Quirin, 317 U. S. 1, 317 U. S. 40 (1942), it was said that

"'cases arising in the land or naval forces' . . . are expressly excepted from the Fifth Amendment, and are deemed excepted by implication from the Sixth."

Id. at 425 U. S. 43:

We recognize that plaintiffs, who have either been convicted or are due to appear before a summary court-martial, may be subjected to loss of liberty or property, and consequently are entitled to the due process of law guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.

However, whether this process embodies a right to counsel depends upon an analysis of the interests of the individual and those of the regime to which he is subject. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U. S. 539, 418 U. S. 556 (1974).

Id. at 425 U. S. 48:

We therefore agree with the defendants that neither the Sixth nor the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution empowers us to overturn the congressional determination that counsel is not required in summary courts-martial.

Justice Powell, concurring at 425 U.S. 49-51:

The Constitution expressly authorized the Congress to "make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces." Art. I, § 8. Court-martial proceedings, as a primary means for the regulation and discipline of the Armed Forces, were well known to the Founding Fathers. The procedures in such courts were never deemed analogous to, or required to conform with, procedures in civilian courts. One must ignore history, tradition, and practice for two centuries to read into the Constitution, at this late date, a requirement for counsel in the discipline of minor violations of military law.

I recognize, of course, that one's constitutional rights are not surrendered upon entering the Armed Services. But the rights are applied, as this Court often has held, in light of the "unique military exigencies" that necessarily govern many aspects of military service. See Parker v. Levy, supra, at 417 U. S. 758. In recognition of this, since the founding of the Republic, Congress has enacted special legislation applicable only to the Armed Services, [Footnote 2/2] including the current provisions in the Uniform Code of

425 U. S. 51

Military Justice for summary courts-martial. Art. 16(3), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 816(3).

The Summary Court-Martial may take away one's right to liberty and property. Pursuant to the Constitution, no counsel is required. The presiding officer need not be an attorney. The presiding officer acts as judge, factfinder, prosecutor, and defense counsel. And the rights to liberty and property get aliened.

Your version of inalienable rights has been repeatedly cited to the Declaration of Independence for years. That is the one that goes, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...."

I'm agnostic. I've never proposed that any 'God' has anything to do with our rights.

Constitutional rights were not granted by "the Creator.

We agree

--- who has the lawful power to declare a provision of the Constitution null and void? What is your source of higher law?

We the people are the both the source and the power.

Efforts to have the 18th Amendment declared unconstitutional FAILED spectacularly.

Congrats on admitting that such efforts were made, and are constitutional in themselves.

Very well, you claim to have retired from the navy. No doubt as an officer, correct? -- That's what most of you phonies claim, so forgive my doubt. -- Your lack of any sort of honor, or respect for constitutional law, leads me to this conclusion.

Getting rattled, aintcha?

A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court stated:

The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false....

Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2, 120-21 (1866).

Thanks for making my point… -- Our basic human rights CANNOT be suspended/amended away by 'majority rule', no matter what the supposed necessity.

There is no such thing as the constitutional rights of service members being "temporarily suspended" while in the military.

Call it what you will, but service members are governed by the UCMJ, not by our Constitutional rule of law.

Your belief that constitutional amendments may be declared unconstitutional, --

Never had that belief. I believe that amendments attempting to infringe on our basic human rights are unconstitutional BEFORE THEY ARE ADOPTED..

U.S. Supreme Court Middendorf v. Henry, 425 U.S. 25 (1976) Syllabus at 425 U.S. 26: Held: 1. There is no Sixth Amendment right to counsel in a summary court-martial.... 2. Nor does the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment require that counsel be provided the accused in a summary court-martial proceeding. Opinion of the Court at 425 U.S. 31-32: Special courts-martial may award a bad-conduct discharge, up to six months' confinement at hard labor, forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for six months, and, in the case of an enlisted member, reduction to the lowest pay grade, Art.19, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 819. Article 15 punishment, conducted personally by the accused's commanding officer, is an administrative method of dealing with the most minor offenses. Parker v. Levy, 417 U. S. 733, 417 U. S. 750 (1974). Opinion of the Court at 425 U.S. 32: The summary court-martial occupies a position between informal nonjudicial disposition under Art. 15 and the courtroom-type procedure of the general and special courts-martial. Its purpose, "is to exercise justice promptly for relatively minor offenses under a simple form of procedure." Manual for Courts- Martial 79a (1969) (MCM). It is an informal proceeding conducted by a single commissioned officer with jurisdiction only over noncommissioned officers and other enlisted personnel. Art. 20, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 820. The presiding officer acts as judge, factfinder, prosecutor, and defense counsel. The presiding officer must inform the accused of the charges and the name of the accuser and call all witnesses whom he or the accused desires to call. Id. at 33-34: The question of whether an accused in a court-martial has a constitutional right to counsel has been much debated, [Footnote 12] and never squarely resolved. See Reid v. Covert, 354 U. S. 1, 354 U. S. 37 (1957). Dicta in Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, 71 U. S. 123 (1866), said that "the framers of the Constitution, doubtless, meant to limit the right of trial by jury, in the sixth amendment to those persons who were subject to indictment or presentment in the fifth." In Ex parte Quirin, 317 U. S. 1, 317 U. S. 40 (1942), it was said that "'cases arising in the land or naval forces' . . . are expressly excepted from the Fifth Amendment, and are deemed excepted by implication from the Sixth." Id. at 425 U. S. 43: We recognize that plaintiffs, who have either been convicted or are due to appear before a summary court-martial, may be subjected to loss of liberty or property, and consequently are entitled to the due process of law guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. However, whether this process embodies a right to counsel depends upon an analysis of the interests of the individual and those of the regime to which he is subject. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U. S. 539, 418 U. S. 556 (1974). Id. at 425 U. S. 48: We therefore agree with the defendants that neither the Sixth nor the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution empowers us to overturn the congressional determination that counsel is not required in summary courts-martial. Justice Powell, concurring at 425 U.S. 49-51: The Constitution expressly authorized the Congress to "make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces." Art. I, § 8. Court-martial proceedings, as a primary means for the regulation and discipline of the Armed Forces, were well known to the Founding Fathers. The procedures in such courts were never deemed analogous to, or required to conform with, procedures in civilian courts. One must ignore history, tradition, and practice for two centuries to read into the Constitution, at this late date, a requirement for counsel in the discipline of minor violations of military law. I recognize, of course, that one's constitutional rights are not surrendered upon entering the Armed Services. But the rights are applied, as this Court often has held, in light of the "unique military exigencies" that necessarily govern many aspects of military service. See Parker v. Levy, supra, at 417 U. S. 758. In recognition of this, since the founding of the Republic, Congress has enacted special legislation applicable only to the Armed Services, [Footnote 2/2] including the current provisions in the Uniform Code of 425 U. S. 51 Military Justice for summary courts-martial. Art. 16(3), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 816(3). The Summary Court-Martial may take away one's right to liberty and property. Pursuant to the Constitution, no counsel is required. -----

Ho hum, --- do you ever stop the SPAM????

[tpaine #49] I'm well aware of the temporary suspension of rights while in the military, having served three years.

[tpaine #56] Call it what you will, but service members are governed by the UCMJ, not by our Constitutional rule of law.

You stupid bastard, the UCMJ is created by Congress as a Federal law, pursuant to an explicit grant of authority in the Constitution at Article I, Section 8, Clauses 14 and 18.

There is no temporary suspension of constitutional rights while in the military. Rights, military and civilian are rooted in the Constitution. The U.C.M.J. (Article 10) is not a statement of military rights, any more than Title 18, U.S.C. vis a statement of civilian rights.

Your claiming your stupid bullshit simply reveals you are an ignorant asshole.

The U.S. Supreme Court repeated cited the U.S. Constitution when determining the rights of Henry at a Summary Court Martial.

U.S. Supreme Court

Middendorf v. Henry, 425 U.S. 25 (1976)

Syllabus at 425 U.S. 26:

Held:

1. There is no Sixth Amendment right to counsel in a summary court-martial....

2. Nor does the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment require that counsel be provided the accused in a summary court-martial proceeding.

Id. at 33-34:

The question of whether an accused in a court-martial has a constitutional right to counsel has been much debated, [Footnote 12] and never squarely resolved. See Reid v. Covert, 354 U. S. 1, 354 U. S. 37 (1957). Dicta in Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, 71 U. S. 123 (1866), said that

"the framers of the Constitution, doubtless, meant to limit the right of trial by jury, in the sixth amendment to those persons who were subject to indictment or presentment in the fifth."

In Ex parte Quirin, 317 U. S. 1, 317 U. S. 40 (1942), it was said that

"'cases arising in the land or naval forces' . . . are expressly excepted from the Fifth Amendment, and are deemed excepted by implication from the Sixth."

Id. at 425 U. S. 43:

We recognize that plaintiffs, who have either been convicted or are due to appear before a summary court-martial, may be subjected to loss of liberty or property, and consequently are entitled to the due process of law guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.

However, whether this process embodies a right to counsel depends upon an analysis of the interests of the individual and those of the regime to which he is subject. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U. S. 539, 418 U. S. 556 (1974).

Id. at 425 U. S. 48:

We therefore agree with the defendants that neither the Sixth nor the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution empowers us to overturn the congressional determination that counsel is not required in summary courts-martial.

David A. Schlueter, Military Criminal Justice: Practice and Procedure, Fifth Edition, Lexis Law Publishing, 1999, § 1-1(B) at page 7:

The Constitution, which sets in motion a system of military criminal justice, also contains specified limitations on government infringement of individual rights. miilitary due process, as it is applied today, recognizes that the protections of the Constitution generally apply with equal force to servicemembers and that the U.C.M.J., the Manual for Courts-Martial, and service regulations may provide greater protections than the Constitution.

As always, I promise to never fail to show you the respect you seserve. Asshole.

--- the UCMJ is created by Congress as a Federal law, pursuant to an explicit grant of authority in the Constitution at Article I, Section 8, Clauses 14 and 18. --- The U.C.M.J. (Article 10) is not a statement of military rights, ---

Didn't say it was a statement, I said service members are governed by the UCMJ, not by our Constitutional rule of law.

As usual you're playing wordgames in an attempt to put yourself up as some sort of legal expert at LF..

Guess what? No one gives a shit...

Find something else to obsess about, you'll feel better if you stop trying to prove nothing here.

[tpaine #49] I'm well aware of the temporary suspension of rights while in the military, having served three years.

[tpaine #56] Call it what you will, but service members are governed by the UCMJ, not by our Constitutional rule of law.

[tpaine #58] Call it what you will, but service members are governed by the UCMJ, not by our Constitutional rule of law.

[tpaine #58] Didn't say it was a statement, I said service members are governed by the UCMJ, not by our Constitutional rule of law.

You stupid bastard, the UCMJ is created by Congress as a Federal law, pursuant to an explicit grant of authority in the Constitution at Article I, Section 8, Clauses 14 and 18.

There is no temporary suspension of constitutional rights while in the military. Rights, military and civilian are rooted in the Constitution. The U.C.M.J. (Article 10) is not a statement of military rights, any more than Title 18, U.S.C. vis a statement of civilian rights.

Your claiming your stupid bullshit simply reveals you are an ignorant asshole.

The U.S. Supreme Court repeated cited the U.S. Constitution when determining the rights of Henry at a Summary Court Martial.

U.S. Supreme Court

Middendorf v. Henry, 425 U.S. 25 (1976)

Syllabus at 425 U.S. 26:

Held:

1. There is no Sixth Amendment right to counsel in a summary court-martial....

2. Nor does the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment require that counsel be provided the accused in a summary court-martial proceeding.

Id. at 33-34:

The question of whether an accused in a court-martial has a constitutional right to counsel has been much debated, [Footnote 12] and never squarely resolved. See Reid v. Covert, 354 U. S. 1, 354 U. S. 37 (1957). Dicta in Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, 71 U. S. 123 (1866), said that

"the framers of the Constitution, doubtless, meant to limit the right of trial by jury, in the sixth amendment to those persons who were subject to indictment or presentment in the fifth."

In Ex parte Quirin, 317 U. S. 1, 317 U. S. 40 (1942), it was said that

"'cases arising in the land or naval forces' . . . are expressly excepted from the Fifth Amendment, and are deemed excepted by implication from the Sixth."

Id. at 425 U. S. 43:

We recognize that plaintiffs, who have either been convicted or are due to appear before a summary court-martial, may be subjected to loss of liberty or property, and consequently are entitled to the due process of law guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.

However, whether this process embodies a right to counsel depends upon an analysis of the interests of the individual and those of the regime to which he is subject. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U. S. 539, 418 U. S. 556 (1974).

Id. at 425 U. S. 48:

We therefore agree with the defendants that neither the Sixth nor the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution empowers us to overturn the congressional determination that counsel is not required in summary courts-martial.

David A. Schlueter, Military Criminal Justice: Practice and Procedure, Fifth Edition, Lexis Law Publishing, 1999, § 1-1(B) at page 7:

The Constitution, which sets in motion a system of military criminal justice, also contains specified limitations on government infringement of individual rights. miilitary due process, as it is applied today, recognizes that the protections of the Constitution generally apply with equal force to servicemembers and that the U.C.M.J., the Manual for Courts-Martial, and service regulations may provide greater protections than the Constitution.

As always, I promise to never fail to show you the respect you seserve. Asshole.

-- the UCMJ is created by Congress as a Federal law, pursuant to an explicit grant of authority in the Constitution at Article I, Section 8, Clauses 14 and 18. --- The U.C.M.J. (Article 10) is not a statement of military rights, ---

Didn't say it was a statement, I said service members are governed by the UCMJ, not by our Constitutional rule of law.

As usual you're playing wordgames in an attempt to put yourself up as some sort of legal expert at LF..

Guess what? No one gives a shit...

Find something else to obsess about, you'll feel better if you stop trying to prove nothing here…

Your claiming your stupid bullshit simply reveals you are an ignorant asshole.

My goodness, but you are overwrought, nolu sham.

I have no idea what you're trying to prove by posting, over and over the same crappola, and I'll sure no one else at LF does either. ---- Give it a rest..