Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This (Fed regulation of MJ is unconstitutional) isn't "just another one", it's the first one.
As you imply, if the Big Govt pushers know what's good for them they will quietly urge the Fed govt to lose this one. This might be happening already, as evidenced by the almost complete lack of Federal lawsuits against states that make pot legal.
The Big-govt pushers know they had better cut their losses and get out of the public eye, before a lawsuit is brought that can expose their numerous blatant violations of the 10th amendment that enable modern liberalism to stay afloat in this country.
The reason for this is that for several years now, there has been a rider (currently known as the Blumenauer-Rohrabacher rider) attached to federal spending bills that bar the DOJ from spending money to prosecute people who are obeying their state's laws regarding marijuana.
This was the working compromise that was developed under the Obama administration.
"For states such as Colorado and Washington that have enacted laws to authorize the production, distribution and possession of marijuana, the Department expects these states to establish strict regulatory schemes that protect the eight federal interests identified in the Department’s guidance. These schemes must be tough in practice, not just on paper, and include strong, state-based enforcement efforts, backed by adequate funding. Based on assurances that those states will impose an appropriately strict regulatory system, the Department has informed the governors of both states that it is deferring its right to challenge their legalization laws at this time. But if any of the stated harms do materialize—either despite a strict regulatory scheme or because of the lack of one—federal prosecutors will act aggressively to bring individual prosecutions focused on federal enforcement priorities and the Department may challenge the regulatory scheme themselves in these states." https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justi...rcement-policy
This rider was upheld as the legal law by the Ninth Circuit, when the feds prosecuted a couple of growers who were obeying California law.
I believe the most recent rider either has just run out or is about to. Sessions has said he will prosecute as soon as he is allowed to spend the funds.
Discussions of constitutional issues aside, which as several people here have noted raise some thorny issues which could upset a few apple carts, there's an easy out for Congress to follow - just continue the working compromise. Not really satisfactory, I know, but it would be the easiest thing to do.
In this case, I favor stripping all power from the federal government for banning drugs. Each individual state should have the choice to decide if they want to legalize certain drugs. The same should apply to prostitution, gambling, and so forth. The way I see it is people will still engage in those activities regardless if legal or not, might as well tax and regulate it.
LOL, you can't strip power regarding this from the Fed Gov. The Fed Gov isn't your neighborhood watch.
You’re missing the point. California has enacted strict gun laws counter to the 2nd. The issue of legal marijuana ties into state’s rights. When the issue is settled by a conservative court, which will happen, California will have the legal right to sell marijuana and its citizens will have the right to carry without state interference.
They will also have the freedom for employees to contract with employers over their wages and benefits, without interference of an always-rising "mandatory Federal minimum wage" pricing the employees out of the market for low-skill jobs.
And they will have the freedom to drain a swamp on their own land that lies completely within one state's borders, without interference from Federal environmental activists suing them for taking away one habitat for the brine shrimp or whatever the protected species for today is.
And they will also have the freedom to choose any health insurance policy they want, from any company, without Big Government forcing them to choose (and pay huge premiums and deductibles) for a policy that gives them coverage they don't need.
And they will also have more freedoms, and more, in quantities that can barely be listed in one post. Because modern liberalism will be gone, ruled unconstitutional (correctly) by the Supreme Court.
And this won't be just California citizens. It will be nationwide.
The reason for this is that for several years now, there has been a rider (currently known as the Blumenauer-Rohrabacher rider) attached to federal spending bills that bar the DOJ from spending money to prosecute people who are obeying their state's laws regarding marijuana.
This was the working compromise that was developed under the Obama administration.
So that's what form the run-away-and-hide-from-the-chance-of-our 10th-amendment-violations-might-be-revealed plan took.
So that's what form the run-away-and-hide-from-the-chance-of-our 10th-amendment-violations-might-be-revealed plan took.
I figured there had to be something.
I think they all would prefer to duck a fight over the 10th amendment, especially since there is a relatively easy fix for this - to just make the current situation into law.
I don't know of any easy way to keep tabs on the Congressional Cannabis Caucus - but they're the folks to watch on this issue. https://www.salon.com/2017/02/18/con...san-consensus/ All four founders have seniority, and can swing some weight. Two are Rs, two are Ds - this really doesn't seem like a partisan issue too me.
I believe other folks have since joined the caucus.
Nonsense. That's merely the excuse, not the authority. If I grow some pot in my backyard and smoke it without its ever crossing any state lines (in a state that does not have any MJ-permitting laws) I can be arrested and prosecuted under Federal law. And my case would have nothing to do with Interstate Commerce.
And has started cutting back on such overly-broad misinterpretations, as I pointed out in the OP.
You are forgetting about the Necessary and Proper Clause.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer
The pot heads are going to have to push it to the point of Federal legalization, if they want to get out from under Federal threat even in a state that says it's OK. That's why I said more cases will be coming.
Gonzales v. Raich never addressed my main point here: That the Fed govt has no authority to regulate MJ. Only a twisted interpretation of the Commerce Clause excuses the govt's obvious usurpation of power.
The cases that come will be based on federal prosecutions brought by the Sessions DoJ. The prosecutions will stand, but will have no impact on the validity of state law.
Of course Raich addressed the question of federal authority. You should read it again, more carefully this time.
You are forgetting about the Necessary and Proper Clause.
Nope. I knew the Necessary and Proper Clause had nothing to do with it, so I didn't other mentioning it. Rightly.
The Constitution gives the Fed govt no authority to regulate pharmaceuticals and other drugs. Maybe it would be nice it if did, but it doesn't. So the Fed has no such authority to regulate pot.
And the 10th amendment nails the coffin shut on the issue, stating flatly that any power not mentioned, was forbidden to the Fed govt. The states and the people can still exercise it if they want.
Nonsense. That's merely the excuse, not the authority. If I grow some pot in my backyard and smoke it without its ever crossing any state lines (in a state that does not have any MJ-permitting laws) I can be arrested and prosecuted under Federal law. And my case would have nothing to do with Interstate Commerce.
And has started cutting back on such overly-broad misinterpretations, as I pointed out in the OP.
Fed govt says marijuana banned, state govts say it's OK: 10th amendment crisis?
Reminds me of growing up in the ghetto when one gang gave a local independent dealer permission to sling rock on their turf in exchange for taxes but another faction within the same gang tried to get a side tax going.
Gotta love the parallels.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
