The Government stole my friend's private property...

[Some Random Guy]

In some states, PASSENGERS are required to provide identification upon request by a police officer

Not surprising. I looked for that info before, but couldn't quickly find any statutes to that effect except for Alberta, and you know how picky those canadians get when you treat them as the 51st state (or in Obama's case the 58th).

 

[grndslm]

And as soon as you convince the state supreme court of that fact, then it will be true. Until then, it is the law in Mississippi. These are state charges, correct? Not federal?

Correct. However, the Controlled Substance Act would be the issue even in state court, because of the Constitution's supremacy clause...

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Ergo... the Controlled Substance Act would be more supreme than the MS act/statute/law.

In some states, PASSENGERS are required to provide identification upon request by a police officer.

According to ( ) this "legal" definition of passenger, they would need to pay the driver, otherwise they're just a guest.

Ya know...this guy sounds A LOT like the guy (in his mid-twenties) who lived in his mom's garage when I was in Jr High School. He was the neighborhood Dungeon Master (D&D) and there always seemed to be a cloud inside of the garage. He could come up with some really wacky stuff too - and, even as a pre-teen, I KNEW he was screwed up in the head!

Sweet ad hominem attack, bro! I'm also reporting your post for self-evident reasons. Good work!!

 

[grndslm]

What's funny is that everybody here is claiming that every citizen has these certain fundamental rights.... and the Constitution is supreme over other laws/statutes... BUT judicial review doesn't typically find anything unconstitutional about outlawing marijuana, and there's nothing anybody can do about it. Where is the disconnect here?

I don't think people would be responding to this thread had I asked... "My friend just murdered a cop, how can he get around the legal aspects?" or "My friend was distributing kiddie porn and got busted, what should he do now?"

If people are not infringing on the rights of others, do they honestly have the right to life, liberty, & property??? Do people need to claim their rights before they're actually protected? Is there any truth to submitting a notarized Notice of Understanding & Intent and Claim of Right, which would go undisputed?? Would that act as the default judgment if she did not admit to possession? Who would be submitting an affidavit or claiming they were injured by her possession?

Everybody here smells something fishy, but none of you want to point to me where the smell is coming from.

 

[Some Random Guy]

According to ( ) this "legal" definition of passenger, they would need to pay the driver, otherwise they're just a guest.

That is one definition. Here is another.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/passenger

Law.com is not a government sponsored or approved web site. Unless the laws of the state of mississippi define a passenger, then the common english usage of the term prevails. If there is a dispute over the meaning of the word or how it applies to the law, then the two sides may argue over the term and the judge will decide, based upon precedent.

Of course, this really has nothing to do with your friend's case.

Ergo... the Controlled Substance Act would be more supreme than the MS act/statute/law.

Supreme in the sense that if the laws conflict, then federal law trumps state law. However, if the laws do not conflict, then there is no problem. So, if she is charged under state law, then she needs to defend against state law. If the state law is overruled by federal law, then you can use that as a defense and work to get the state law overturned.

You cannot successfully argue that the state law coexists peacefully with the federal law, but the federal law is (in your opinion) unconstitutional, therefore the state law is invalid. This argument is 100% guaranteed to fail because the state courts know that they adjudicate state law and not federal, and therefore they will defer all interpretation of federal law to federal courts.

Your argument would also fail because it is not logically correct. Even if you do manage to convince the courts that the Controlled Substance Act is unconstitutional, that does not mean that the state laws against drugs are unconstitutional. There are many things that the states can do that the federal government cannot.

Do you know the statute number under which she is charged?

 

[>Charlotte<]

Oh, for Pete's sake, this is just absurd. It's a standard issue drug charge. Hire an attorney, make the deal, take the hit (no pun intended) and move on. Nobody cares about your righteous indignation, so get over yourself. If your friend wants to guarantee a maximum penalty, you tell her to go in there without an attorney and start yammering on about due process and inalienable rights and our God-given right to get stoned.

Grow up. You're not Al Pacino and this isn't "...And Justice for All".

 

[Some Random Guy]

What's funny is that everybody here is claiming that every citizen has these certain fundamental rights.... and the Constitution is supreme over other laws/statutes... BUT judicial review doesn't typically find anything unconstitutional about outlawing marijuana, and there's nothing anybody can do about it. Where is the disconnect here?

The disconnect here is that your conclusions have little to do with the arguments. Yes, people have rights. Yes, the constitution is the basis for our government. Yes, laws have been passed against marijuana and other drugs. Yes, the courts have not decided that the federal legislature's prohibition of certain substances. These statements are not in conflict.

No, you can do something about it by lobbying your representatives to change the laws or by successfully arguing to the supreme court that the laws are unconstitutional. Join NORML if you want to because lobbying works better when there are more constituents involved.

You seem to think that constitutional rights follow the rule of "your rights to swing your fist extend up until the next person's nose". Well that simplistic view is very nice, but its not reality. There are many government intrusions into our personal life that affect our behavior behind closed doors. As mentioned before - lobby for changes if you don't like it.

None of this argument will help your friend's case.

 

[grndslm]

Oh, for Pete's sake, this is just absurd. It's a standard issue drug charge. Hire an attorney, make the deal, take the hit (no pun intended) and move on. Nobody cares about your righteous indignation, so get over yourself. If your friend wants to guarantee a maximum penalty, you tell her to go in there without an attorney and start yammering on about due process and inalienable rights and our God-given right to get stoned.

Grow up. You're not Al Pacino and this isn't "...And Justice for All".

I am a somebody!! I am learning new things in here, and others are enjoying the refresher course.

If you don't like it... then why would you dump your zealous opinion on my thread? Please never return here unless you respect the discussion. Thank you!