Legalize It!

"Support CA Legalization Bill - AB 390 - Mar 31st Hearing

NORML is writing you today with MAJOR news from Sacramento.

California's first-ever marijuana legalization bill, Assembly Bill 390: The Marijuana Control, Regulation and Education Act, is tentatively scheduled for a hearing before the Committee on Public Safety and Health on Tuesday, March 31.

To date, we know that over 4,000 of you have e-mailed your California state assemblymen and urged him or her to support AB 390. This is a terrific show of force, but we need to step up our lobbying efforts THIS WEEK!

The Committee is expected to vote on this proposal immediately following the hearing so it is vital that you contact your elected officials, and the members of the Public Safety Committee in particular, and urge them to support AB 390 TODAY!

Contact information, including e-mail addresses and phone numbers for the members of the Committee, is available here. Please write and call them today!
Please tell them that AB 390 would:

Restrict access to marijuana to those under age 21;
Raise over $1 billion dollars in annual tax revenue;
And improve public safety by redirecting law enforcement efforts to focus on more serious crimes.

You may also send letters in support of this measure to your state assemblyman by going here:

http://capwiz.com/norml2/issues/alert/?alertid=12758896

For additional information on this hearing, please contact California NORML. California NORML also has fliers you can download in support of AB 390 available here. Because the date of this hearings is subject to change, please log on here prior to 3/31 to confirm the bill's status.

Thank you for supporting NORML's marijuana law reform efforts in California.

Sincerely, The NORML Team "

Bailouts, Bonuses, Bills of Attainder and Bull Shit

Are you confused about the current controversy over the A.I.G. bonuses to induce thieves and idiots to keep their positions?

Of course you are!

You are no doubt particularly confused over why anyone would oppose taxing those "mother fuckers" on 90% of these million dollar bonuses.

Well, I am here today to explain why someone might rise in opposition.....it's called The Constitution of The United States of America!

Here's what it says [from Http://www.techlawjournal.com]:

"Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.
The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed."

"The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply - trial by legislature." U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965).

"These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted. A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment." William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.

"Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. ... The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community." James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788.

"Supreme Court cases construing the Bill of Attainder clause include:

"Ex Parte Garland, 4 Wallace 333 (1866).
Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wallace 277 (1866).
U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965).
Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S.425 (1977).
Selective Service Administration v. Minnesota PIRG, 468 U.S. 841 (1984)."

Now, the proposed tax would, in effect, abrogate existing contracts. So....is it a "bill of attainder"??

Good question...glad you asked!