Sorry to change the subject to an HSA question:

Does anyone with an HSA use someone other than Optum for the account?

What our Constitution authorizes the federal government to do has been debated since its ratification.

But, for us, I think it's important to keep in mind that the Constitution came about because the Articles of Confederation (AOF) were too weak.

Back then, they had people who wanted the Constitution to specifically enumerate what was authorized, and they had people who felt it was to be left open to interpretation. But, I think if you look back at it, most of the Founders and Justices of our past thought this was neither possible, or practical.

Even the Founders who vehemently opposed the open ended interpretation of the Constitution that gave the Federal Government power, and felt they must be specifically defined, acted otherwise once they were in office. Otherwise, that whole Louisiana Purchase thing wouldn't have occurred.

I think when the Constitution was ratified, they were just trying to make things work and pay the bills and it didn't really make sense to have a state law -- if it conflicted with a federal law -- to be on the same level. It would have been the AOF all over again.

So, in my opinion, the judicial activist you speak of were some very smart men who did a lot to keep this country together. One of the first was Chief Justice John Marshall. His opinions on the Court probably did just as much to shape and maybe even save this country as anyone.

So, long story short. I think the priority is:

1.) U.S. Constitution
2.) U.S. Federal law
3.) U.S. Treaty
4.) Executive Agreement
5.) State law


One of the best Court cases to figure out the reasonings behind the Supremacy Clause is called McCulloch v. Maryland. Check it out and let me know what you think. :D


New K

Then I stand by my contention that it will be fun to watch the first hippie in DIA fire up a splif and run from the TSA....

When Obama got reelected, the first thing I said to my wife was Marijuana will be legal within 4 years.

Today, one of Yahoo's top news pieces is about that...Including the Justice Department saying they will not stand in the way.

I'm all for it if they sin tax the hell out of it. 500% is a reasonable premium IMO. That plus the resultant pulldown of enforcement, legal processing and incarceration for marijuana would be a HUGE financial boon.

Not to mention taking the narcotraficantes out of the picture (at least for pot)...

The trouble with taxing something too much is to drive said thing back "underground" and thus the cartels etc. *don't* go away.

Ha. Ok, you're right. Maybe 500% is a little excessive. :p All I'm saying is plenty of people are making a lot of money on pot illegally, it's already here, and people are already doing it. An enormous amount of $ is spent fighting it, etc, etc. Why not take off the blinders and let it pay off some of our deficit/debt?

Of course I still maintain we have a spending problem in DC, and not a tax revenue problem. That said, why not bring it in where you can?

How did we get off in this little briar patch again? And what does it have to do with the L&G about Delta? :confused:

Overtaxing wont work because it would incentivize putting some seeds in the garden between the beans and tomatoes.

If you aren't in a safety sensitive position, what's the big deal with pot?

If we treated it like alcohol... We would probably save money.

Good point.

Isn't Delta great?