Tag Archives: Constitution

Is there an ecumenically-based religious creed common to a significant number of cannabis-based theologies?


 

 

MakeItLawfulBanner

 

By Chris Conrad / ORIGINAL HERE / (posted approx. 9 years ago)

Cantheism Note: This treatise is not intended to advocate the breaking of any law. An academic treatise by Chris Conrad, which addresses the question: Is there an ecumenically-based religious creed common to a significant number of cannabis-based theologies, that can be articulated and offered as a formal petition to Congress for redress of grievances to protect religious use of cannabis under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America?

We hold that a universal set of principles and practices does exist that meets the above qualifications. Based on the following principles, do assert that adherence to the religious use of marijuana should be recognized and protected under the First Amendment and provided equal protection of the law under the 14th Amendment. We invite your comments and suggestions. — Definitions: Cantheism (1997), derived from Kantheism (1996 fr. Greek: kannabis + theism). A mystical religion based on the inherent goodness of the Cannabis plant. Adherents: Cantheists, Cannabists

Cantheist Creed I believe that Cannabis sativa, L. is the useful cane and the true hemp. I believe that Cannabis Hemp is a restorative natural resource for all humanity to grow, share, and use for our fundamental needs.
Therefore, I shall honor its existance. I believe that the Cannabis plant is endowed with important healing powers, some of which cannot yet be explained.
Therefore I shall offer it to ease the suffering of others. I recognize cannabis as a sacrament within my community. Therefore I shall receive it with thanksgiving and deep respect for its resinous powers. The cultivation and disemination of cannabis are honorable professions. Therefore I shall act with absolute integrity and honesty* to protect the Cantheist community and its values. * Note: The Christian Bible states that “the truth shall set ye free” and “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s”, therefore a Cantheist cannot lie or perjur themselves in a court of law because it violates both “the truth” and “the things that are Caesar’s”, namely the courts. Cantheology: Philosophical roots Cantheism neither endorses nor discriminates against any other church, faith, or system of belief. Anyone may incorporate Cantheism into their current religious persuasion, so long as they adhere to the Creed. Many of the world’s great religions have used Cannabis sacramentally and ceremonially, including but not limited to: Animism: Belief that all things have sentient spirits, and some versions assert that Cannabis has the power to cross the line between the mental and the spiritual worlds. Popular in Africa and pre-Columbian America. See the parable of the rope, below. Biblical Judeo-Christian-Moslem religions, including Coptic Christianity and Rastafari: Genesis 1:29-31; Ezekiel 34:29; Isaiah 18:4-5; Rev. 22:1-2. Sacred spliff. Egyptians: Smoke Eaters at the Temple at Thebes, incense, mortality rituals. Hinduism: Sadhu, ganja, chillum, spiritual and physical healing, smoking cloth. Includes the mystical interpretation of Cannabis healing powers via Ayurvedic practices. Pygmy and other African religions: Mound smokers, animism, the spirit of plants and nature, the breath of the gods. Scythianism: Smoking huts, hemp labor, cannabis purification rituals. Shamanism: Use of all herbs in mystical pursuit of the infinite. Sufi Moslems: Use cannabis to reach an ecstatic state. Zoroastrianism: Use cannabis to communicate with god on high for mystical consciousness and personal enlightenment. Cannabis Hemp: The rope that linked mankind to God African creation myths explain why God, who once lived close to humankind, has removed himself from their world.  Most of these myths describe a golden age when there was no separation between humans and their creator.  However, something occurred to alienate God.  The Mende say that God withdrew into the heavens because humans continually begged benefits from him.  Ashanti mythology tells of God’s retreat into the heavens after a woman hit him with her pestle while pounding traditional food.  Myths from the upper White Nile area speak of the relationship between God and man being severed when a rope between heaven and earth was accidentally cut (Mbiti, John S. 1969. African Religions and Philosophy. London: Heinemann, p 97; Mitchell, Robert Cameron. 1977. African Primal Religions. Niles, IL: Argus Communications. p, 25).   Cantheist Rites, Rituals and Ceremonies Observance of Cantheist rites are beneficial but not mandatory. The extent of one’s participation is a measure of the depth of one’s devotion. Practice cannabism, the regular consumption of cannabis. Make oblation with the hempseed, and sow it everywhere. Offer thanksgiving and blessing for cannabis when you partake. Share the holy smoke among the faithful. Use a hempen prayer cloth to inhale through when sharing the holy smoke among the community. First passage of cannabis at age 16: Parents may choose to offer cannabis, child may pass on this opportunity. Age of personal consent at 18: Adult steps forward and accepts Cantheism and shares in the sacrament. Summer solstice: Bonfire jumping. Undertake cannabinges, periods of intense consumption of cannabis. Freedom pilgrimage: Take the sacrament in a land that it is free from oppression at least once in your life, and remember the years of persecution.

Cantheist Symbology The graphic symbol for Cantheism is modeled after the ancient Egyptian hieroglyph for hemp rope, which was transformed into the letter “h”. Illustration: Detail from an Egyptian stella (1780-1306 BC), Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Firenze (Italy) Room III, case 14, Item 7611 The hand symbol for Cantheism is right hand cupped around the left, with two fingers extended in the inner hand, symbolizing the male and the female plants. The overall hand gesture signifying the female calyx which holds the trichome glands. Astronomy: The three stars of Orion’s belt represent the three aspects of cannabis: Commerce, medicine, and spirit. Sirius, the brightest star in the nearby constellation Canis Major (Big Dog) symbolizes cannabis in the Northern winter sky. Cantheist Code I will share my faith, but not be obnoxious about it. We pray for our oppressors, and work for a better world.

CONTINUE READING…

 

http://www.care2.com/c2c/group/Cantheism

https://www.facebook.com/chris.conrad.77312?ref=br_rs

Abolish the Drug Czar’s Office!


NORML
04/14/2017

 

The Trump Administration is widely expected to pick Representative Tom Marino for Drug Czar.

Representative Marino is a longtime, rabid drug warrior who has a consistent record of voting against marijuana law reform legislation — a position that runs counter to that of the majority of voters and his own constituents. His appointment to this office highlights the fact that this administration remains committed to the failed 1980s ‘war on drug’ playbook.

The Trump administration promised to eliminate bureaucratic waste. It should start by eliminating the office of the Drug Czar. 

The White House Drug Czar is required, by statute, “to oppose any attempt to legalize the use of a substance that is listed in Schedule I” and to “ensure that no Federal funds … shall be expended for any study or contract relating to the legalization (for a medical use or any other use) of a substance listed in Schedule I.” This narrow-minded, Flat Earth mentality refuses to acknowledge the reality that the majority of the country is now authorized to engage in the use of medical cannabis and it mandates that US drug policy be dictated by rhetoric and ideology rather than by science and evidence.

NORML opposes Marino’s appointment to Drug Czar and we further call for this anti-science position to be abolished entirely.

Click here to send a message to President Trump – End the charade of the Drug Czar by abolishing the position. 

The Drug Czar’s office is a remnant of a bygone era when US drug policy was framed as a ‘war’ fueled largely by rhetoric and ideology. In 2017 we can do better and we must. The majority of Americans view drug abuse as a public health issue, they favor regulating cannabis as opposed to criminalizing it, and they are demanding policy changes based on science and evidence.

Tell President Trump: There is no place for ‘Czars’ in today’s American government, particularly those like Marino who still cling to the outdated and failed drug war policies and misplaced ideologies of the past.

Thanks in advance for standing together with the thousands of NORML members throughout the country.

The NORML Team

P.S. Our work is supported by thousands of people throughout the country as we work to advance marijuana reform in all 50 states and at the federal level. Can you kick in $5, $10 or $20 a month to help us keep going?

 

 

NORML and the NORML Foundation: 1100 H Street NW, Suite 830, Washington DC, 20005
Tel: (202) 483-5500 • Fax: (202) 483-0057 • Email: norml@norml.org

Subscription Reminder: You’re Subscribed to: NORML using the address: shereekrider@usmjparty.com

From: normlnews@lists.norml.org
NORML – The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws
1100 H Street, NW
Suite 830
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 483-5500

"And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat." Genesis 1:29


14459056_1790391791244808_2083831152_n

Here is an essay that I’ve written to the News Enterprise, the Courier Journal, the Lexington Herald, Mitch McConnell, Rand Paul, Brett Guthrie, Matt Bevin, Rick Sanders, and the Kentucky Medical Association. I’m still looking for more people to write to, but I thought you might appreciate it. Love what you guys are doing, and keep up the great work! –Joshua

“And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.” Genesis 1:29

Those are the very first words that God spoke to mankind. He told us that He Himself made every herb, and He has given us every single one of them.

Cannabis being legalized isn’t just about the fact that the Controlled Substance Act is grossly unconstitutional, that mothers and fathers are going to prison and having their children ripped from their homes, that Congress abuses the Commerce Clause to tell us what we cannot have in our own homes and bodies, or the countless lives that have been destroyed because of the failed War on Drugs. Cannabis is a God given right.

The governments tell us God was wrong; that He made a mistake. Why should anyone, whether they support legalization or not, stand for such a thing? Cannabis laws have nothing to do with helping anyone, nor do they have to do with money. The government uses cannabis to invade the rights of everyone. The DEA has put GPS tracking devices on vehicles, they have intercepted millions of American’s phone calls, they can open your mail, and they can search your home or car without a warrant by simply saying, “It smelled like marijuana”.

The Commerce Clause of the Constitution says that Congress has the power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”. From this single sentence, Congress created the Controlled Substance Act. This is how it works:

Congress has the authority to control “interstate commerce”, or commerce between state lines. Commerce within state lines, or “intrastate commerce” is supposed to be regulated by the individual States. However, Congress says that it is not feasible for law enforcement to know whether cannabis is being sold or was obtained through interstate commerce, so they regulate the intrastate commerce as well.

In 2002, Angel Raich’s home was invaded by DEA agents who destroyed her six medical cannabis plants. Raich took this to the Supreme Court, claiming that her plants were for personal use and obviously did not affect interstate commerce. The Court disagreed, stating that in Wickard vs. Filburn (1942), the Court had decided that growing wheat for one’s personal use was within Congress’s power to regulate. This essentially means that Congress has the authority to prohibit absolutely anything. If they wish to prohibit chairs, you cannot have a chair for personal use. They may also ban all materials used to “manufacture” chairs. This is not just about “drugs”. This is about our rights and liberties as American citizens.

The Controlled Substance Act says cannabis, or “marihunana” as it’s called in the Act, is a Scheduled 1 substance along with heroin and LSD, which means it has no acceptable medicinal value. However, Patent 6630507 is the U.S. Govenment’s own patent on the various cannabinoids present in cannabis. The government is lying, and millions of people are forced to use prescription drugs which have rampaged Kentucky and the country.

Yet alcohol, which must be manufactured and has destroyed countless lives, is sold and celebrated all over the country. The Scriptures have plenty to say about alcohol and why it is wise to avoid it. When God made all the plants on the third day, before there was ever a man to till the ground, cannabis grew without any help. There is no need to “manufacture” cannabis. It’s a plant!

Some will say “But it’s against the law of the land!” Nonsense. The law of the land is that God made all plants and herbs, because the very first words that God said to man is “Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed”.

God made it, and He made it for you. He made it because He loves you. He made it to bring you health, wellbeing, and to supplement your endocannabinoid system, which He also made. Nobody has the right to tell you that you can’t have that which God explicitly said is yours.

“He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth” Psalm 104:14

If you have access to the internet, I urge you to research whether these things are true. Search where Congress draws their power for the Controlled Substance Act, the endocannabinoid system that exists in every human, Patent 6630507, and the history and science behind this very ancient herb. Then contact our representatives and tell them that we will not stand for having our rights trampled on any longer; because we are Kentucky, we are patriots, and we believe the Word of God.

(Written and received from an “Anonymous” reader, sk.)

Presidential Executive Orders and the Constitution: What Can Trump Really Do?


David Schultz

What is an executive order and what can presidents such as Trump do with them?
Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution describes the process for how a bill becomes a law. The process requires both houses of Congress to pass legislation with identical language and for it to be signed by the president. In the alternative, Congress by two-thirds majorities in both Houses can override a presidential veto to make something a law, and in some cases bills the president has not signed but not vetoed and returned to Congress may also become a law (if the president refuses to return a bill adopted in the last 10 days of a session, the president has exercised what is known as a pocket veto). Once a bill becomes a law it is legally binding, enforceable by the executive branch.
Yet the congressional route is not the only way law is created. Orders by the courts become binding and enforceable as law by the courts. In some circumstances, orders issued by the President of the United States too carry the force of law. These executive orders have been issued by presidents since the time George Washington became president, and over time they have been used by almost every president, often either with support or controversy.
The legal or constitutional basis for executive orders has several sources. The first is in Article II, Section I, Clause 1,which vests in the president the executive power, and Article II, Section 3, which requires that presidents “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” While lacking precise definition, the executive power gives presidents broad enforcement authority to use their discretion to determine how to enforce the law or to otherwise manage the resources and staff of the executive department. Second, executive orders have a legal basis in power delegated by Congress to the president or executive department agencies. Congress may delegate to the Environmental Protection Agency, for example, authority to make determinations about what constitutes clean air or water under the Clean Water Act of 1972 or Clean Air Act of 1973. This delegation power is subject to the constitutional limits outlined by a host of Supreme Court decision.
Third, since the adoption of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) in 1946, there is a complex process and structure for how administrative agencies and members of the executive branch can make rules and have then become legally binding. Taken together, these constitutional clauses, specific congressional delegation, and the rule making process of the APA form the legal basis of presidential executive orders.
With the exception of President William Henry Harrison who died barely a month after being sworn into office, every president has issued executive orders. George Washington issued the first one, directing officers of the Articles of Confederation government to compose a report for his administration on the status or state of affairs of America. Other famous orders included Thomas Jefferson ordering the Louisiana Purchase, James Knox Polk ordering the annexation of Texas, Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, Franklin Roosevelt ordering the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, and John Kennedy creating the Peace Corps. The numbering of executive orders began in 1907, and not until the Federal Registration Act of 1936 was there a formal process for recording executive orders. Prior to 1936 and 1907 executive orders were issued less formally.
From 1789 to the end of the Obama presidency there have been nearly 14,000 executive orders. Franklin Roosevelt holds the record with 3,721 orders, with second place going to Woodrow Wilson at 1,803, and third place to Calvin Coolidge with 1,203. Among recent presidents, Bill Clinton issued 364, George Bush 291, and Barack Obama fill in. The American Presidency Project at http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php maintains a list of all executive orders.
In the last several years, partisan and political gridlock between Congress and the president has led the latter into using executive orders as a way of addressing issues or creating rules of laws in the absence of explicit congressional action. The Obama Administration through the EPA issued rules regulating carbon emissions. Yet in Murray Energy Company v. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S., ;136 S.Ct. 999; 194 L.Ed.2d 18 (2016) in a suit brought by more than two dozen states and several utility company, the Supreme Court in a 5-3 vote issued a stay on the rules pending review by the Court of Appeals. In United States v. Texas, ___ U.S. ; 136 S.Ct. 2271 (2016), the Supreme Court deadlocked 4-4 and issued a per curiam decision that upheld a lower decision that issued an injunction to prevent enforcement of an executive order or program entitled Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), which would provide legal presence for illegal immigrants who were parents of citizens or lawful permanent residents. This decision effectively ended President Obama’s effort to use an executive order to effect immigration reform. The lower court decision is provided in this book.
While many criticize executive orders as a way to circumvent Congress and the separation of powers process, there is no question that these orders are a major part of federal executive power that is unlikely to disappear in the future. However, as should be clear, presidents are not kings and do not have any inherent power to issue orders. Their authority must come from the Constitution or law, subject to limits. Nor are presidents like Captain Pikard able simply to say “Make it so” and it will happen. Once presidents do issue executive orders they carry the binding force of law and they are hard to repeal or undue. This will make it difficult for Trump to undo except a very few of Obama’s recent executive orders. Conversely, moving forward , any of Trump’s orders will have to follow a specific process to have the force of law, and there are many things he simply cannot order.
Finally, when one looks at the executive orders Trump has already issued, they really are so vague and general that they really do not do anything. His first on Obamacare did not really order anyone to do anything, and the executive order on the Mexican wall too was vacuous and could not really command anything, especially when it required an appropriation of money that Trump did not have. In many cases these “executive orders” seem more like press releases or public relations than real legally-binding executive orders.

Follow David Schultz on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ProfDSchultz

CONTINUE READING…

Presidential Executive Orders and the Constitution: What Can Trump Really Do?


David Schultz

What is an executive order and what can presidents such as Trump do with them?
Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution describes the process for how a bill becomes a law. The process requires both houses of Congress to pass legislation with identical language and for it to be signed by the president. In the alternative, Congress by two-thirds majorities in both Houses can override a presidential veto to make something a law, and in some cases bills the president has not signed but not vetoed and returned to Congress may also become a law (if the president refuses to return a bill adopted in the last 10 days of a session, the president has exercised what is known as a pocket veto). Once a bill becomes a law it is legally binding, enforceable by the executive branch.
Yet the congressional route is not the only way law is created. Orders by the courts become binding and enforceable as law by the courts. In some circumstances, orders issued by the President of the United States too carry the force of law. These executive orders have been issued by presidents since the time George Washington became president, and over time they have been used by almost every president, often either with support or controversy.
The legal or constitutional basis for executive orders has several sources. The first is in Article II, Section I, Clause 1,which vests in the president the executive power, and Article II, Section 3, which requires that presidents “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” While lacking precise definition, the executive power gives presidents broad enforcement authority to use their discretion to determine how to enforce the law or to otherwise manage the resources and staff of the executive department. Second, executive orders have a legal basis in power delegated by Congress to the president or executive department agencies. Congress may delegate to the Environmental Protection Agency, for example, authority to make determinations about what constitutes clean air or water under the Clean Water Act of 1972 or Clean Air Act of 1973. This delegation power is subject to the constitutional limits outlined by a host of Supreme Court decision.
Third, since the adoption of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) in 1946, there is a complex process and structure for how administrative agencies and members of the executive branch can make rules and have then become legally binding. Taken together, these constitutional clauses, specific congressional delegation, and the rule making process of the APA form the legal basis of presidential executive orders.
With the exception of President William Henry Harrison who died barely a month after being sworn into office, every president has issued executive orders. George Washington issued the first one, directing officers of the Articles of Confederation government to compose a report for his administration on the status or state of affairs of America. Other famous orders included Thomas Jefferson ordering the Louisiana Purchase, James Knox Polk ordering the annexation of Texas, Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, Franklin Roosevelt ordering the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, and John Kennedy creating the Peace Corps. The numbering of executive orders began in 1907, and not until the Federal Registration Act of 1936 was there a formal process for recording executive orders. Prior to 1936 and 1907 executive orders were issued less formally.
From 1789 to the end of the Obama presidency there have been nearly 14,000 executive orders. Franklin Roosevelt holds the record with 3,721 orders, with second place going to Woodrow Wilson at 1,803, and third place to Calvin Coolidge with 1,203. Among recent presidents, Bill Clinton issued 364, George Bush 291, and Barack Obama fill in. The American Presidency Project at http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php maintains a list of all executive orders.
In the last several years, partisan and political gridlock between Congress and the president has led the latter into using executive orders as a way of addressing issues or creating rules of laws in the absence of explicit congressional action. The Obama Administration through the EPA issued rules regulating carbon emissions. Yet in Murray Energy Company v. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S., ;136 S.Ct. 999; 194 L.Ed.2d 18 (2016) in a suit brought by more than two dozen states and several utility company, the Supreme Court in a 5-3 vote issued a stay on the rules pending review by the Court of Appeals. In United States v. Texas, ___ U.S. ; 136 S.Ct. 2271 (2016), the Supreme Court deadlocked 4-4 and issued a per curiam decision that upheld a lower decision that issued an injunction to prevent enforcement of an executive order or program entitled Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), which would provide legal presence for illegal immigrants who were parents of citizens or lawful permanent residents. This decision effectively ended President Obama’s effort to use an executive order to effect immigration reform. The lower court decision is provided in this book.
While many criticize executive orders as a way to circumvent Congress and the separation of powers process, there is no question that these orders are a major part of federal executive power that is unlikely to disappear in the future. However, as should be clear, presidents are not kings and do not have any inherent power to issue orders. Their authority must come from the Constitution or law, subject to limits. Nor are presidents like Captain Pikard able simply to say “Make it so” and it will happen. Once presidents do issue executive orders they carry the binding force of law and they are hard to repeal or undue. This will make it difficult for Trump to undo except a very few of Obama’s recent executive orders. Conversely, moving forward , any of Trump’s orders will have to follow a specific process to have the force of law, and there are many things he simply cannot order.
Finally, when one looks at the executive orders Trump has already issued, they really are so vague and general that they really do not do anything. His first on Obamacare did not really order anyone to do anything, and the executive order on the Mexican wall too was vacuous and could not really command anything, especially when it required an appropriation of money that Trump did not have. In many cases these “executive orders” seem more like press releases or public relations than real legally-binding executive orders.

Follow David Schultz on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ProfDSchultz

CONTINUE READING…

Presidential Executive Orders and the Constitution: What Can Trump Really Do?


David Schultz

What is an executive order and what can presidents such as Trump do with them?
Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution describes the process for how a bill becomes a law. The process requires both houses of Congress to pass legislation with identical language and for it to be signed by the president. In the alternative, Congress by two-thirds majorities in both Houses can override a presidential veto to make something a law, and in some cases bills the president has not signed but not vetoed and returned to Congress may also become a law (if the president refuses to return a bill adopted in the last 10 days of a session, the president has exercised what is known as a pocket veto). Once a bill becomes a law it is legally binding, enforceable by the executive branch.
Yet the congressional route is not the only way law is created. Orders by the courts become binding and enforceable as law by the courts. In some circumstances, orders issued by the President of the United States too carry the force of law. These executive orders have been issued by presidents since the time George Washington became president, and over time they have been used by almost every president, often either with support or controversy.
The legal or constitutional basis for executive orders has several sources. The first is in Article II, Section I, Clause 1,which vests in the president the executive power, and Article II, Section 3, which requires that presidents “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” While lacking precise definition, the executive power gives presidents broad enforcement authority to use their discretion to determine how to enforce the law or to otherwise manage the resources and staff of the executive department. Second, executive orders have a legal basis in power delegated by Congress to the president or executive department agencies. Congress may delegate to the Environmental Protection Agency, for example, authority to make determinations about what constitutes clean air or water under the Clean Water Act of 1972 or Clean Air Act of 1973. This delegation power is subject to the constitutional limits outlined by a host of Supreme Court decision.
Third, since the adoption of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) in 1946, there is a complex process and structure for how administrative agencies and members of the executive branch can make rules and have then become legally binding. Taken together, these constitutional clauses, specific congressional delegation, and the rule making process of the APA form the legal basis of presidential executive orders.
With the exception of President William Henry Harrison who died barely a month after being sworn into office, every president has issued executive orders. George Washington issued the first one, directing officers of the Articles of Confederation government to compose a report for his administration on the status or state of affairs of America. Other famous orders included Thomas Jefferson ordering the Louisiana Purchase, James Knox Polk ordering the annexation of Texas, Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, Franklin Roosevelt ordering the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, and John Kennedy creating the Peace Corps. The numbering of executive orders began in 1907, and not until the Federal Registration Act of 1936 was there a formal process for recording executive orders. Prior to 1936 and 1907 executive orders were issued less formally.
From 1789 to the end of the Obama presidency there have been nearly 14,000 executive orders. Franklin Roosevelt holds the record with 3,721 orders, with second place going to Woodrow Wilson at 1,803, and third place to Calvin Coolidge with 1,203. Among recent presidents, Bill Clinton issued 364, George Bush 291, and Barack Obama fill in. The American Presidency Project at http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php maintains a list of all executive orders.
In the last several years, partisan and political gridlock between Congress and the president has led the latter into using executive orders as a way of addressing issues or creating rules of laws in the absence of explicit congressional action. The Obama Administration through the EPA issued rules regulating carbon emissions. Yet in Murray Energy Company v. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S., ;136 S.Ct. 999; 194 L.Ed.2d 18 (2016) in a suit brought by more than two dozen states and several utility company, the Supreme Court in a 5-3 vote issued a stay on the rules pending review by the Court of Appeals. In United States v. Texas, ___ U.S. ; 136 S.Ct. 2271 (2016), the Supreme Court deadlocked 4-4 and issued a per curiam decision that upheld a lower decision that issued an injunction to prevent enforcement of an executive order or program entitled Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), which would provide legal presence for illegal immigrants who were parents of citizens or lawful permanent residents. This decision effectively ended President Obama’s effort to use an executive order to effect immigration reform. The lower court decision is provided in this book.
While many criticize executive orders as a way to circumvent Congress and the separation of powers process, there is no question that these orders are a major part of federal executive power that is unlikely to disappear in the future. However, as should be clear, presidents are not kings and do not have any inherent power to issue orders. Their authority must come from the Constitution or law, subject to limits. Nor are presidents like Captain Pikard able simply to say “Make it so” and it will happen. Once presidents do issue executive orders they carry the binding force of law and they are hard to repeal or undue. This will make it difficult for Trump to undo except a very few of Obama’s recent executive orders. Conversely, moving forward , any of Trump’s orders will have to follow a specific process to have the force of law, and there are many things he simply cannot order.
Finally, when one looks at the executive orders Trump has already issued, they really are so vague and general that they really do not do anything. His first on Obamacare did not really order anyone to do anything, and the executive order on the Mexican wall too was vacuous and could not really command anything, especially when it required an appropriation of money that Trump did not have. In many cases these “executive orders” seem more like press releases or public relations than real legally-binding executive orders.

Follow David Schultz on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ProfDSchultz

CONTINUE READING…

Alito: Obama besieged Constitution with ‘unprecedented challenges’


 

 

Image result for Justice Samuel Alito

Saturday, November 19, 2016

Michael F. Haverluck (OneNewsNow.com

 

Alerting fellow Americans, United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) Justice Samuel Alito revealed that the nation’s constitutional structure has undergone “unprecedented challenges” in recent years under the Obama administration, warning that citizens’ religious freedom is in “greater danger” today than perhaps ever before.

While addressing conservative litigators for 45 minutes Thursday at the Federalist Society’s 2016 National Lawyers Convention, Alito stressed what a great impact the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had on the bench and America’s justice system.

U.S. Constitution under attack

His speech also highlighted the threats to constitutional rights that Americans face under the Obama administration – including attacks on their religious liberty and freedom of speech – noting how the constitutional principle of the separation of powers has been in jeopardy for years.

“When Nino [Scalia’s nickname] spoke to students, he would often ask them what is most important about the Constitution and – more times than not – the answer would refer to the Bill of Rights,” Alito pointed out, according to The Christian Post. “Nino would say, ‘Wrong. What is most important is the structure, the separation of powers at the federal level and the division of sovereignty between federal government and the states.’ Human rights guarantees are worthless without a governmental structure to protect them.”

The 66-year-old judicial expert impressed the fact that President Barack Obama has consistently bombarded the nation’s founding principles in order to impose his own agenda on America.

“In recent years, we have seen unprecedented challenges to our constitutional structure, [as] the executive has also claimed the power to make out-in-out changes in the laws enacted by Congress,” Alito impressed.

Bringing up the 2014 SCOTUS case Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environment Protection Agency, Alito shared how the Obama administration used it to take unilateral actions so it could skirt around Congress, adding how the White House also refused to enforce specific laws enforced by the legislative body.

The outgoing president has used his allegiance to the green agenda’s so-called climate change policies to push his big government regulatory plans through.

“The case stems from Obama’s EPA disregarding of air pollution regulations established by Congress in the Clean Air Act and effectively creating its own stiffer pollutant regulations that also regulated greenhouse gas emissions,” The Christian Post reports.

Stating his case and point against the president, Alito talked about the dealings between the EPA and Congress.

“Congress wrote certain numbers into an environmental statute – numbers pertaining to pollutants,” said the justice, who was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2006. “Now at the time, Congress had in mind conventional beliefs. It was only there that the Supreme Court held that pollutants under the Clean Air Act refer not just to the kind [of pollutants Congress had in mind] when enacting the statute, but also greenhouse gases. Now, if you apply those numbers to the conventional pollutants, they made perfect sense. But if you apply them to greenhouse gases, you get crazy results, as the EPA recognized.”

Alito went on to emphasize that the Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency is an expert at manipulating variables to work to its advantage – an unlawful approach that was overlooked and approved by his colleagues on the bench.

“So, what does the EPA do?” he posed. “Well, the EPA had an eraser and had a pen. So, it took the statute and erased the numbers that Congress wrote and wrote in numbers that were more to its liking. Nino’s opinion for the court held that this was illegal, but four of our colleagues thought what the EPA did was just fine.”

Forgetting faith …

Moving onto the issue of religious liberties, Alito noted his regret about a recent post-Scalia determination SCOTUS made this year, when a majority of his fellow justices agreed not to review a case that involved serious implications to the way Americans can or cannot live out their faith.

“After the state of Washington enacted a law requiring all pharmacies to sell contraceptive and abortion-inducing drugs – like Plan B – a Christian pharmacy owner sued the state and argued that selling the drug would violate his family’s religious convictions,” The Christian Post’s Samuel Smith recounted. “After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected the pharmacy’s argument, they appealed to the Supreme Court.”

Alito filled the audience in that he and his fellow SCOTUS Justices reviewed local pharmacist associations’ amicus brief informing the bench that “the practice of referring customers to other pharmacies is standard because no pharmacy could possibly stock every single drug that is approved by the Food and Drug Administration.”

The conservative justice reaffirmed his disagreement with his colleagues decision not to review the case, pointing out some of the arguments he mentioned on his written dissent about SCOTUS passing the case up.

“In this case, there was strong evidence that the law was enacted to rid the state of those troublesome pharmacists who objected to these drugs on religious ground,” Alito asserted. “But, the Ninth Circuit sustained the law and the Supreme Court didn’t think that was a case that deserved to be reviewed.”

He then restated his belief that Americans of faith had better brace themselves because of the extreme progressive lean of the justice system that has drastically shifted Left under the Obama administration.

“Freedom of religion is in greater danger [today],” Alito alarmed the crowd. “I am reminded of a song by the latest recipient of the Nobel Prize for Literature [Bob Dylan] –  ‘It’s not dark yet, but it’s getting there.'”

Education … or Leftist indoctrination?

When moving on to the condition of higher education in America, Alito condemned the intolerance demonstrated by students, faculties and administrators from college campuses from coast to coast.

“Consider this … Justice Robert Jackson famously wrote that ‘If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official – high or petty – can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism or religion,'” Alito quoted from behind the microphone. “But on college campuses – both public and private – a new orthodoxy rules.”

He then presented the crowd with a hypothetical.

“Suppose a student were to test Justice Jackson’s proposition today by wearing an article of attire supporting a political candidate who is unpopular among the students and the professors by proclaiming that the United States is a great and good country, and by expressing certain conditional religious beliefs,” Alito posed before introducing his follow-up question. “How would that go over?”

The conservative judge indirectly answered his own question by referring to recent injustices that took place on college campuses, where zero tolerance was afforded to those holding Right-leaning views and stances on the 2016 election and LGBT issues.

“Just ask one black student at Queensborough Community College in New York City, who was attacked for wearing a Donald Trump hat,” Alito advised. “Or ask the professor at Marquette University who was suspended and had his tenure revoked after he wrote a blog post that was critical of another professor who refused to let a student with traditional beliefs on gay marriage discuss his opinions in her class.”

CONTINUE READING…

A prayer for Election Eve 2016


 

mj feasibility study

 

May a “Higher Power” be with Us,
On this, the Eve of Our Election,
We must pick a Leader for the USA,
“In God We Trust”!

Let us not forget how hard we fought to get here,
And the Men, Women and Children who suffered and died,
So that we may have the Freedom,
To choose Our way from here.

It is not only Our Right,
It is Our Patriotic Duty,
To fight to keep the Constitution alive,
Lest we loose Lady Liberty’s bright light,
Lest we forever lose Our right to a free life.

Lord, be with us as we make our decisions,
Keep us strong and focused,
And let us not be pushed into a Political trap,
Lest we forever lose Our right to a free life.

And Lord, be with our Leaders as they must make decisions that could kill us,
Make them see clearly Lord,
Not to take away the food and medicine that sustains us,
Beseech them Lord, to free the Cannabis!

Lest we forever lose Our right to a free life.

reoeal

SB 13, Kentucky Cannabis Freedom Act continues to sit in committee since January 7th


KY CANNABIS

 

sb13

There has been no activity on the “Kentucky Cannabis Freedom Act” since January 7th when it was forwarded to “Licensing, Occupations and Administrative Regulations“…

 

Whose members include:

 

Please take time to click on the links and send them a message to work on this Bill!

 

IT IS a crucial time for Kentuckians to stay in close touch with their lawmakers and offer feedback on the issues of the day. Citizens can see which bills are under consideration and keep track of their progress by visiting the Kentucky Legislature Home Page at www.lrc.ky.gov. Kentuckians can also share their thoughts with lawmakers by calling the General Assembly’s toll-free message line at

 

800-372-7181

.

 

LINK TO PDF OF SB13