I saw that on a website selling a related legal substance with different initials. Guaranteed PG Free.
- Status
I saw that on a website selling a related legal substance with different initials. Guaranteed PG Free.
Someone in Oregon has now died from a T H C product purchased from a licensed store.
So I just read a scan of an official looking document that says: "a person who possesses four or more flavored vapor products or flavored alternative nicotine products is rebuttably presumed to posses said items with the intent to sell." Can anyone confirm this?
I read it in this earlier. Also later on gives a possible penalty of six months in jail and/or $200 fine.
Again, nope.Well, it wasn't...before the Great Michigan E-Cig Flavoring/Youth vaping Epidemic Emergency of 2019.
So now it is. Unfortunately.
Uh...
She used her "emergency powers" to pull this off. That's the authority she's claiming. That it's an "emergency" and thus she can do this outside the legislature.
I mean, that's stated fact. In interviews/video.
Last edited:
If some of this bad T_C liquid was bought from a licensed business with a physical location it should not take long to find the source.
Talk about lawsuits. Someone must be shaking in their boots.........
I Don't know where you got the Statement you Quoted below mine. I Didn't make that Statement.
I always thought an emergency can be declared if imminent risk if harm or war exists and action is required without legislative approval. Like inbound nuclear missiles can be judged an emergency and the NCA may take whatever action necessary and report to Congress within whatever the required time frame is required under the War Powers Act (as an example).
In this case, the BEST stretch for a health emergency would be regarding these illegal street cartridges or those diverted from legal dispensaries which are contaminated and would require cooperation between law enforcement and the health department to rapidly identify and remove such products from availability to the public. You know, sorta like they should have done with Fentanyl but no one wanted to call our a special emergency over that, would have blown the budget
Wow. So getting people to not inhale actual oil really is a thing. Who would even think about adding that? Why? What good could it possibly do, and it's certainly more expensive than safe PG.
Wouldn't that be one and the same? I don't understand how Congress could ever restrain the judiciary, it's a separate branch. The only thing Congress can do is write clear, unambiguous, constitutional legislation.
And as almost all the members of Congress are attorneys, why should that be so hard? Were they all at the bottom of their law school class? Or do they WANT to leave it ambiguous so they can point a finger of blame elsewhere and be able to say "see? I tried passing stuff but the judges threw it out!" (that is rhetorical, we all know the answer).
Returning to this Michigan fiasco, as state manufacturers of e liquid will be restricted from providing out of state sales as well as intrastate, doesn't this run afoul of the ICC and throw this into federal court? IIRC, wasn't that what tripped up Pence's Indiana law?
Sorry, I was speaking generally. Not meaning to attribute that line of thinking to you at all.
The Constitution created a Supreme Court and by Article III the inferior courts (the District Courts and their appellate courts) are the creation of Congress as is the jurisdiction of those courts. Congress has the power to vest or divest the jurisdiction of the all federal Courts, including the Supreme Court. The Congress has the power, if not the will, to eliminate all inferior federal courts or severely restrict their jurisdiction. Parenthetically, it is by this power that FDR's threat to "pack" the Supreme Court was not an impotent threat. The number of judges is not fixed; merely the existence of the SC is determined by the Constitution. So, by Article III, there is the power to restrain the Courts.
Last edited:
I was reading it as a federal rather than state thing. Generally there has to be a declared emergency. Also emergency powers often have sharp time limits on them.
What emergency powers are, how they work, and who they are granted to vary by state. It is extremely rare for an official to be able to grant themselves emergency powers for obvious reasons.
Something is off here.
Which is why there haven't always been 9 justices. And I understand the creation of the court is a congressional function, such as confirming judges to the bench, and removal by impeachment if necessary, as well as establishing the whole district court jurisdiction. But can congress divest the court from establishing the constitutionality of a piece of legislation?
Let's say congress passes and the president signs a bill banning bird feeders. The district and appellate courts find that ban unconstitutional. The supreme court will not overturn the bird feeder decision. Can congress divest the court of its jurisdiction over bird feeder legislation?
If they can, what's the point of the judiciary? Simply to enforce bird feeder bans because if they don't congress will either divest them of that responsibility or even worse, cut off funding for the judiciary? Wouldn't allowing congress to have any mechanism of coercion over the judiciary undermine the very existence of the court itself?
I get there is plenty of politics in the judiciary, which is reflective in the selection and confirmation of appointees, but once appointed and the jurisdiction of the court defined (maybe I'm using the wrong word but to me jurisdiction would he a geographic one, not a legal one as the job of the federal court is to apply federal law as written (no more bird feeders) unless in violation of constitutional rights like the right to a bird feeder) the only mechanism left to Congress is the legislation itself, not legislate that a given law against bird feeders cannot be challenged and must be enforced as passed.
It was my understanding as a layman that it was the job of the judiciary to enforce and interpret laws enacted, and those two functions were bound, so a law is not merely blindly enforced but must be constitutional in order for enforcement to occur. And if that power resides in the court, how can Congress divest that? Because that would leave me all confused why we would even need a judiciary let alone a supreme court to rule on stuff like whether a law is constitutional as congress would then have the power to say essentially if we enact it it's constitutional so go and enforce it.
Well, she didn't grant them to herself. She has them as governor. Her edict is effective for 6 months, and then may be renewed for another 6. The operative question is "Is this an actual emergency?".
- Status
Similar threads
