|
|
|
Legal & Policy Challenges
|
|
Dear Mr. President,
Please direct the DEA to remove marijuana from Schedule I and correctly classify it under the definitions that the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) provides. You said in your press conference (after you released the ban on federal funds for stem-cell research) that you believed that science should dictate policy not politics and I respectfully request that you follow through with this pledge even on something so politically toxic as marijuana.
Schedule I of the CSA specifically states that in order to be placed in this schedule I that the substance in question must have "no accepted medical use for treatment in the United States." Well... as of 1996 there are states that have accepted the medicinal uses of marijuana for treatment. Currently there are 13 states that have ACCEPTED the medical use for treatment therefore the current scheduling goes against the definition that was put into place.
In 1970, when the CSA was established there were NO accepted uses for treatment in the US, so the initial scheduling was correct. In 1988, when Administrative Law Judge Francis Young ruled that the DEA was required to reclassify marijuana there again were no states that had accepted the use for treatment and therefore the DEA had due cause to ignore the recommendation. But after California ACCEPTED the medical use for treatment in 1996 the Scheduel I classification became incorrect soley based on the definition.
Why does the Federal Government currently provide Medical Marijuana to 4 citizens of the United States for treatment of their illnesses while upholding the classification under "no medical use for treatment"? Isn't this a little hypocritical???
|
|
|
To legalize marijuana would mean an end to the billions of wasted dollars fighting this "war on drugs". A war, that anyone who grew up in America and went to public schools, saw first hand was lost. Imagine taxation on an herb that has many positive potentials. It can be used to make food, clothes, rope, and hell, even money. To make it illegal costs far more money and it cuts out many potential benefits from it's legalization. Even dependency on cotton would be a thing of the past. So we should vote to end this prohibition, and give people their freedom back, a freedom removed roughly 90 years ago now. We could tax and control it much in the same way Alcohol is controlled. The mobsters lost their power in the 1930's when alcohol was legalized, so let's do the same to the Mexican cartels, the modern mobsters. Hemp For Victory!
|
|
|
Leave the White House less imperial than you found it. Appoint an independent prosecutor to prosecute Bush, Cheney, and their top officials in order to deter in the future the crimes of aggressive war, misleading congress, defrauding congress, misspending funds, war crimes, murder, warrantless spying, torture, domestic propaganda, violations of the Hatch Act and the Voting Rights Act, obstruction of justice, misprision of felony, retaliating against whistleblowers, etc. Restore to Congress the power to legislate, the power to begin and end wars, the power to raise and spend money, the power to approve or reject treaties and appointments, and the power to oversee the functioning of the federal government including through the power of impeachment and the power of inherent contempt. That means no more signing statements rewriting laws, and instead support for legislation that would criminalize such behavior. And it means similar action on each of the other offenses.
We, the people, must:
Demand that Congress ban the use of funds for any activities created in violation of the law by presidential signing statements.
Amend the Constitution to clearly ban the use of presidential pardons to pardon crimes authorized by the president.
Amend the War Powers Act and the Constition to include the requirement that Congressional authorizations of war include time limits of no more than 12 months, after which Congress must vote again to extend the war or end it, to disallow the unconstitutional initiation of wars without Congressional approval, and to make the law enforceable.
Make war profiteering by any war maker a major felony. This would apply to any employee of the federal government or anyone who had within the past decade been an employee of the federal government.
Legislate a requirement that, in any war, the military aged children and grandchildren of the president, the vice president, all cabinet officials, and all Congress members serve on the front lines in the most dangerous combat positions -- no exceptions, no exemptions.
Prohibit the use of mercenaries or any armed contractors, as well as the use of any military force on American soil except when directly engaged in defensive war against a foreign nation.
Repeal the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, the 2008 FISA Amendments Act, the Protect America Act, the original Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and the PATRIOT Act.
Ban secret budgets, secret laws, and secret agencies.
Change the Senate rules to eliminate the filibuster.
Create a task force to research whether the Senate has ever served any useful purpose not better served by the House.
End all rendition, as distinct from extradition.
Amend the Constitution to make the ban on ex-post-facto laws include any laws that would retroactively grant immunity for crimes.
Amend the Constitution to bar the vice president from exercising executive power.
Amend the Constitution to clarify the congressional power of inherent contempt.
Amend the Constitution to include the right to vote and to have one's vote counted publicly at the polling place.
Give Washington, D.C., full voting representation in Congress.
Amend the Constitution to ban private financing of campaigns, create public financing, and provide free air time to candidates.
Sign and ratify the Rome treaty to join the International Criminal Court.
*****
OPTIONAL PART 2 OF THIS PROPOSAL - Drafted and withheld at first, posted May 29th in response to useful comments from ttahiti and many others posted below.
Release more evidence, and support organizations suing in court for the release of evidence.
Ask Congress to update and reissue the subpoenas that were refused during the 110th Congress, and to enforce them through inherent contempt.
Support media reform and independent media outlets. Break up the monopolies. Invest in public media, including an E-Span election network to provide free substantive election coverage.
Advance a long-term vision in which the corrupting influences of money, media, and party are restrained, and our rights are restored, enforced, and expanded, including the right to vote and to have our votes counted publicly and locally, equal rights for all, environmental rights, the right to education and healthcare, worker rights, the right to basic welfare, freedom of press, freedom from war lies, and the right to know your rights.
Push for approval, ratification, and enforcement of international human rights treaties. Build toward Constitutional amendments or a convention with a plan to establish the right to know the laws and to have them applied equally, a ban on signing statements, whistleblowers protected, inherent contempt established, corporations stripped of human rights, monopolies restricted, clean campaign money and free media created, the power of parties reduced, nonpartisan (not bipartisan) redistricting, limiting election seasons, no more electoral college, a bigger House with no Senate, the right to be represented, no appointing of senators, limiting terms for judges, requiring a balanced budget, limiting bills to single topics and requiring clarity, allowing legislation by public initiative, allowing recall elections, creating citizen assemblies, and developing a fourth (people's) branch of government.
|
|
|
The “War on Drugs” is a war on us, the American people. 30% of Americans use or have used illicit drugs. Those who are prosecuted and imprisoned, however, are by far and away the poor, the disabled, the disenfranchised, the Black and Hispanic, the men in our communities, who cannot parent their children because they are in prison, who will be denied forever the right to vote because they went to prison. The last President of the United States never denied that he used illegal drugs. Hard drugs. Was he prosecuted? Of course not. Was he imprisoned? Don’t be silly. Was he denied the right to vote, or to contribute to society? Was he denied the ability to raise his children? Of course not. Has the “War on Drugs” created a “drug-free” society? No. Has it kept drugs from the reach of our youngsters? Not remotely. Drugs are everywhere, as available as they have ever been. It has, however, created a society in which young Black men in America are far more likely to go to prison than to college. A society in which drugs and violence are on every corner. In which the police are powerless to do their job and have declared war on our communities and our children as a consequence. IN WHICH OUR CHILDREN HAVE MORE TO FEAR FROM THE POLICE THAN FROM GANGS AND DRUG DEALERS. The “War on Drugs” is killing us. The “War on Drugs” is a war on us. STOP THE WAR ON DRUGS.
|
|
|
The Constitution states, “Congress shall have the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof.” This power has been abdicated to private bankers. Today, 99.99% of our money is created by private banks when they make loans. This includes the Federal Reserve, a private banking corporation, which orders Federal Reserve Notes to be printed, and then lends them to the U.S. government. Only coins are actually created by the government itself. Coins compose only about 1-10,000th of the M3 money supply, and Federal Reserve Notes compose about 3% of it. All of the rest is created by banks as loans, something they do by simply writing numbers into accounts.
Congress could take back the power to create the national money supply by:
(a) Nationalizing the Federal Reserve.
(b) Reviving the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, a government-owned lending facility used by Roosevelt to fund the New Deal. Rather than merely recycling borrowed money as Roosevelt did, however, the RFC could actually create credit on its books, in the same way that banks do it today, by fanning its capital base into many times that sum in loans. Assuming $300 billion is left of the TARP money approved by Congress last fall, this money could be deposited into the RFC and leveraged into $3 trillion in loans. That’s based on a 10% reserve requirement. If the money were counted as capital, at an 8% capital requirement it could be leveraged into 12.5 times the original sum. That would be enough to fund not only President Obama’s stimulus package but many other programs that are desperately short of funding now.
Many references are available which will be furnished on request. See generally www.webofdebt.com/articles.
|
|
|
Lets make 2009 the year we end the failed "War on Drugs" it isn't working.
And we all seen failed policies in the past, and it costly to tax payers and our Government. Lets fund Drug Treatment Programs instead of locking up and jailing non-violent drug offenders, so they can get the help they need. We can rehabilitate people with drug addictions, instead of having them take up space in jails, prisons, of correctional facilities. Drug offenders can become useful and productive member of society with the proper treatment and counseling. We need to Decriminalize Marijuana. Decriminalizing Marijuana Possession would be a step in the right direction, and would free up police, courts, jails, prisons, and save billions in enforcing criminal marijuana laws. President Jimmy Carter asked Congress in 1977 to Decriminalize Marijuana, I would like to President Barack Obama do the same in 2009.
|
|
|
Due to a clerical error in the Supreme Court header notes of a decision made in the late 1800s, corporations have been granted all the rights of people. Legally speaking, they've been given "personhood" and therefore are entitled to all the rights of citizens enshrined in the Constitution, except for the right to vote.
Consequently, corporations have been granted the right to "freedom of speech" which our founders had never envisioned. Furthermore, their ability to spend their economic resources in electoral politics has been determined to be an exercise of their free speech.
Because corporations hold far more wealth than all the human citizens of the U.S. combined, they have massive undue influence in our electoral and political process. As a result, government often acts to benefit corporations and at the expense of the public.
Over the years, giant corporations have continued to consolidate their power and control of our political system, our media, our educational system, our economy, our public institutions and even over the non-profit sector and our leisure and entertainment.
This has not been good for our society, for our livelihoods, or for our government. If this trend is not stopped very soon, we will reach a point where it cannot be rolled back.
The solution doesn't have to be complex. Revoking corporate "personhood" and enforcing existing laws would be a start.
|
|
|
What is Section 215?
Section 215 allows the FBI to order any person or entity to turn over "any tangible things," so long as the FBI "specif[ies]" that the order is "for an authorized investigation . . . to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities."
Section 215 vastly expands the FBI's power to spy on ordinary people living in the United States, including United States citizens and permanent residents.
The FBI need not show probable cause, nor even reasonable grounds to believe, that the person whose records it seeks is engaged in criminal activity.
The FBI need not have any suspicion that the subject of the investigation is a foreign power or agent of a foreign power.
The FBI can investigate United States persons based in part on their exercise of First Amendment rights, and it can investigate non-United States persons based solely on their exercise of First Amendment rights.
For example, the FBI could spy on a person because they don't like the books she reads, or because they don't like the web sites she visits. They could spy on her because she wrote a letter to the editor that criticized government policy.
Those served with Section 215 orders are prohibited from disclosing the fact to anyone else. Those who are the subjects of the surveillance are never notified that their privacy has been compromised.
If the government had been keeping track of what books a person had been reading, or what web sites she had been visiting, the person would never know.
*If you think this is just about library books your wrong. The FBI regularly conducts sneak and peeks without any explanation. Another great tactic these trained federal agents use is entering a home or building and destroying everything inside, they may have a warrant specifying what they are there for but it doesn't matter, they will take or break everything but! These Agents to get to whom ever will threaten wifes, children, parents, anyone regardless to get cooperation from a person, doesn't matter what they have or have not done.
Is Section 215 Constitutional?
Normally, the government cannot effect a search without obtaining a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has committed or will commit a crime.
Section 215 violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing the government to effect Fourth Amendment searches without a warrant and without showing probable cause.
The violation of the Fourth Amendment is made more egregious by the fact that Section 215 might be used to obtain information about the exercise of First Amendment rights. For example, the FBI could invoke Section 215 to require a library to produce records showing who had borrowed a particular book or to produce records showing who had visited a particular web site.
Section 215 might also be used to obtain material that implicates privacy interests other than those protected by the First Amendment. For example, the FBI could use Section 215 to obtain medical records.
The provision violates the First Amendment by prohibiting those served with Section 215 orders from disclosing that fact to others, even where there is no real need for secrecy.
The provision violates the First Amendment by effectively authorizing the FBI to investigate U.S. persons, including American citizens, based in part on their exercise of First Amendment activity, and by authorizing the FBI to investigate non-U.S. persons based solely on their exercise of First Amendment activity.
The provision violates the Fourth and Fifth Amendments by failing to require that those who are the subject of Section 215 order's be told that their privacy has been compromised.
Thank you ACLU
|
|
|
Directives and legislation providing protection for whistleblowers who disclose waste, fraud, or abuse within an agency, and punitive processes for managers who retaliate against those whistleblowers in their performance reviews should be established. irectives should clarify to all agencies, including law enforcement and intelligence agencies, the expectation that whistleblowers be robustly defended from reprisals and that whistleblower claims be dealt with quickly and fairly.
The president should establish a culture that supports whistleblowers by rewarding disclosure and punishing retaliation in performance appraisals. The president must also work with Congress to enact comprehensive federal whistleblower reform that extends meaningful protections to law enforcement and intelligence agency whistleblowers.
- From the 21st Century RTK Agenda
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear President Obama and Members of Congress,
Our drug laws aren't working. Every year, millions of Americans are arrested on drug offenses, yet drugs are more available than ever before. High school students find it easier to get marijuana than alcohol or prescription drugs. And Mexican drug cartels have become rich and powerful, representing a growing threat to our national security.
With our economy struggling, we can't afford to waste billions of dollars every year on a policy that has failed. There's only one way to eliminate the drug cartels' profits.
|
|
|
The USA government should at the very least be embarassed by its attempt to prohibit certain activities and the use of so-called "controlled substances". Not only is the War on drugs a war they have lost, but it is one that the government can not win. It must end now.
Legislators seem to have a mentality that just because they pass a law which bans something, that people will obey. Reality is often the opposite. Look back at the Prohibition of Alcohol and it seems obvious why that was later overturned. I just wonder why no one is smart enough to stop the stupid prohibition we have going on now.
|
|
|
Recent disclosures indicate that many who are in our government have a difficult time paying their taxes correctly. Whether through mischief, malice, or mistake, the failure to pay diminishes the trust of the people in their government: the results of which are decreased participation by citizens in the process of government, a change in thinking - that we are being governed by an aristocracy over which we have no control and which operates by different rules, and an erosion of the entire system of representative government.
The proposal: Have the IRS Audit all of Congress and the 3100 appointees of the Executive branch (about 1100 of which are confirmed by the Senate) and publish summary findings. Treat irregularities exactly as they would be treated for any citizen, with no special considerations for status.
We cannot "make everything better" with initiative, but we can take specific, measurable, concrete steps to move government in the right direction. This proposal is no cure all, but will have a positive effect for present and future generations. www.auditcongress.com
|
|
|
Americans who will be smoking cannabis won't be the only reason there will be extra revenue. Yes there will be an extra 13+ billion in extra revenue, but also all the freed up prisons would save billions. All the money going to fighting this pointless war, will save billions. Hemp will bring in millions of jobs and billions of dollars in the clothing, fuel, textile, paper, and housing industry. Alcohol, tobacco, and generic prescription drugs are far more harmful than cannabis, and smoking it isn't the only way to go about it. On that argument people who smoke cannabis smoke nearly 1/30th of the amount cigarette smokers use. Not only are all of these points true, but drug carels would CRIPPLE with 65%+ of their business gone. Marijuana law reform is no longer a political liability, it's a political opportunity
|
|
|
One of the most frustrating events in government is when the legislature tells the people to be prepared to sacrifice then have that same legislature give itself a raise. Who wouldn't give themselves a raise if given the choice.
While I don't have what I consider to be the one way of determining legislators pay, I'm sure plenty of people would have some suggestions. Here is one possible idea: Legislators receive the same pay as the "average" citizen in the United States. Average should be determined by the median income, not the mean, so that extremely large income earners do not skew what the "average" citizen truly earns.
Legislators must also pay taxes like everyone else and must not be allowed to give themselves tax exemptions.
Legislators cannot accept positions or any other kind of income from a company who has contributed to their campaigns.
Legislators should not receive retirement compensation in any form (other than whatever retirement they've contributed to--not a special package for politicians). Politics should not be a career.
|
|
|
Marijuana legalization is a contentious issue which has recieved an unfair amount of attention from the Federal Government. In addition to government funded programs disseminating information about the negative effects of marijuana, there should also be government funded programs analyzing the costs and benefits of Marijuana legalization and its true impact upon the community. Organizations should be created that employ economists, legal experts, and medical professionals, combining their expertise to make an educated assesment on the effects of marijuana legalization in the country. This information should then be disseminated in a similar fashion as the anti marijuana organizations funded by the Federal government, like abovetheinfluence.com for example.
Hundreds of thousands of American citizens are arrested each year for Marijuana posession, a non-violent crime. It would be useful to conduct a comprehensive analysis to determine if it is truely worthwhile to incarcerate these citizens, or if the Illegal nature of the drug is actually doing more damage to our country. Up to now, there has been a one way cherry-picking of information by the federal government to support the notion of keeping marijuana illegal.At the same time, information indicating the benefits of Legalization is not presented by the government, though it is obvious that benefits do exist. This suppression of information needs to be stopped as it is contradictory to the transparent ideals of American government. All sides need to be represented and analyzed fairly.
|
|
|
Make a rule, resolution or law that requires all contents and amendments of a particular legislative bill include ONLY items that actually pertain to the actual purpose or title of the bill.
The House of Representative does NOT allow it's members to attach riders to pieces of legislation that are not "germane" to the purpose or title of the proposed bill after it is placed on the floor for debate but we should take this one step further and prevent the individual committees from both the Senate and the House from doing this as well.
|
|
|
Politicians must not be allowed to vote for any legislation unless they sign an affidavit asserting that they have read and understand the legislation.
|
|
|
Take a look at Paul Krugman's article on healthcare reform at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/22/opinion/22krugman.html
We need government run healthcare now. Mr. Obama, please do not be fearful of standing up to private interests on this issue. They are refusing to cooperate. We will stand behind you on this important issue.
|
|
|
Transparency should empower citizens to expose the inner workings of government, not empower the government to spy on its citizens. Several widely-used Internet technologies allow companies to track users as they surf the Web for the purpose of serving personalized, relevant advertisements. Even though many online services and applications may appear "free," users actually support these services by permitting providers to collect, store, and monetize their personal information.
On government sites, the OMB determined in 2003 that tracking and profiling visitors could endanger civil liberties, and strictly limited these practices. The government remains interested in data-mining information about citizens' online activities. In 2005, for instance, the Department of Justice served Google with a subpoena for "all queries that have been entered on your company's search engine" during a specified period of time. The company fought this subpoena, however, a number of telecommunications companies granted the government unprecedented access to traffic on their networks.
As the administration integrates private technologies, such as YouTube videos, into transparency Web sites, companies are using this opportunity to place tracking files onto visitors' computers. No taxpayer should be forced to submit to any form of tracking, merely for visiting a government site and accessing public information. Any files placed on a user's computer must expire at the end of a session, and should not be permitted to indefinitely track which sites that user visits on the Internet.
|
|
|
The most knowledgeable people are those who are on the inside of industry or government and see fraud, corruption and waste. If the reward for coming forward is unemployment, criminal arrest and losing your retirement many out of self interest and survival will look the other way. People who come forward must know they have protection from the Federal Government for blowing the whistle.
|
|
|
Perhaps the number one problem in the world is the unchecked power of mega-corporations, most commonly involved in the energy, finance, drug, armament, and insurance fields. These entities receive the benefits of being gigantic while they also receive the rights of persons. The Supreme Court has established that the money these giants pay in order to influence politicians is "free speech." The tremendous advantages thus gained allows these behemoths to maintain laws which favor their continued dominance over people and humane values.
Corporations are charged by law to seek profit, and this, along with human greed, has led to soulless profiteering, and extensive damage to humans.
Redefining the rights of corporations, taking away (or reducing) their personhood, will restore the balance of power between Big Business (AKA the ultra-rich) and the middle classes.
|
|
|
The initial idea of prohibition of illegal search and seizures guaranteed by the constitution has gone by the way side in the era of electronic records.
Now days the government does not need to come into your home to invade your privacy or seize your bank account they can just do it electronically. The problem is automatic inter-agency and federal/state/local transfer of information without your knowledge. The initial idea behind this was to track terrorists, pedophiles, and organized crime but it has expanded to all citizens. The concept of "trust us we are doing this for your own good" no longer flies.
There is no longer anonymity from the government in all matters of life this needs to change or the United States will become a police state.
|
|
|
Every public servant takes an oath to 'Preserve and Protect the Constitution of the United States'. If they don't take the oath, they can't take the job. The problem is, do we have any evidence that they have the slightest idea of what the Constitution is, and the directives contained in it?
Taking the oath should be more than a symbolic ritual.
My idea is to require all would-be public servants, from the lowest to the highest, to take a test on their understanding of the Constitution. If they don't get at least 80% or so, they should be ineligible to serve in a position of trust. After a period of 1 year, they would be able to take the test again.
Test scores should be published, especially for candidates for public office.
This would help to add meaning to the practice of taking the oath of office. If they have to take an oath, why not demonstrate that they understand the highest law of the land?
|
|
|
|
| Displaying 1 - 25 of 635 Ideas |
|
|
|
Looks Promising!
I'm Not So Sure...
Close