Doonesbury by Garry Trudeau for February 07, 2014
Transcript:
Zonker: I don't think towns like Riffles will be banning marijuana sales for long... They'll see all the pot tourism dollars going elsewhere and they'll wise up... Zipper: But by then it could be too late. Those towns will be dead- nothing left but scorpions and tumbleweeds! Zonker: Did you mention that at the meeting? Zipper: No! I forgot! Think I have legal exposure?
BE THIS GUY over 10 years ago
Zipper, you fool, you had the fate of the town in your hands!
JP Steve Premium Member over 10 years ago
Is Legal Exposure a treatable condition?
David Huie Green LoveJoyAndPeace over 10 years ago
tumblin tumbleweeds, the future of those who don’t jump on the bandwagon?
Eggman61 over 10 years ago
homophobe, with an ‘e’.
Beleck3 over 10 years ago
problem with people like Zonker is they are not focused with laser like fear as most Rightwingers are. fear is a wonderful mind killer as the Right proves with almost every statement out of their mouths.
susan.e.a.c over 10 years ago
Scorpions and tumbleweeds in the mountains? Narcotic “tourism”? Is that as big as gun tourism?
roctor over 10 years ago
What do you take for political exposure?
goweeder over 10 years ago
" Homophobs beware. (hmm Google doesn’t recognize “homophob” yet. Isn’t that odd. I thought it was a real word))"~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~English is a living language; we add new words all the time. But if you find it in a dictionary, I’m pretty sure it will bespelled ‘homophobe.’
Seed_drill over 10 years ago
Zonk shouldn’t be too concerned, after all Jack Daniels is distilled in a dry county.
arpee44 over 10 years ago
“Legal exposure”: Is Zipper scared that he can be sued for not warning the town??
Timothy Madigan Premium Member over 10 years ago
that’s because you’re missing a letter.It’s Homophobes, with an ‘e’ at the end, which they still don’t recognize but they do homophobic and xenophobes so it’s just a matter of time and/or dictionary updates.
David Huie Green LoveJoyAndPeace over 10 years ago
”Article I, Section 10, of the Constitution deals with the States as they are PROHIBITED from passing laws. And, Article IV, Section1, deals with the States as their “Public Acts, Records, and Judicial Proceedings” shall be given “Full Faith and Credit” in other States. Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2, deals with the Presidential power to make Treaties; and nowhere therein are there any statements concerning any form of “obligation” on the part of the President to “admit” to having “thrown out a Treaty”. Additionally, the Panama Canal Treaty contained, in its original form, a time for termination; which came during President Carter’s Administration. The U.S. merely fulfilled its part in acknowledging that date of termination, and turning the Canal over to the Republic of Panama, as the Treaty required.^One poster claims a “treaty” for the Federal Laws on marijuana; however this poster gives no evidence as to WHAT Treaty this might be – and when ratified, by Congress. In point of fact, marijuana IS NOT regulated by treaty, and is legal in many countries other than the U.S.A.”.I thought it would bore you, but from:http://www.canorml.org/news/unhappybd.html.“Mar 30th, 2011 – Today marks the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Single Convention Treaty on Narcotic Drugs, which initiated the international policy of cannabis prohibition. Pursuant to the treaty, cannabis is prohibited in every single country in the world . . . Anslinger had pushed for a treaty against cannabis in order to shore up the act’s dubious constitutionality under U.S. law (the act was later declared unconstitutional for other reasons, …”..Treaties come right below the Constitution itself in empowering the Federal Government to comply with the international agreements. As to the President following the law we have Paragraph 3 which includes: “he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed”.I understand that “faithfully executed” means nothing to some but I’m just not one of them. I have no problem with breaking the treaty, just think we should be honest about it..As to breaking treaties from:
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm.“The Constitution is silent about how treaties might be terminated. The breaking off of two treaties during the Jimmy Carter administration stirred controversy. In 1978 the president terminated the U.S. defense treaty with Taiwan in order to facilitate the establishment of diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China. Also in 1978 the new Panama Canal treaties replaced three previous treaties with Panama. In one case, the president acted unilaterally; in the second, he terminated treaties in accordance with actions taken by Congress.”.There’s no reason to be paranoid when someone proposes the President break the treaty he has decided to not enforce.Every law which can be selectively executed is not faithfully executed.