The End of States Rights

You do what we in DC tell you to and SHUT UP!

Well, it would appear that the Supreme Court & the Federal Government aren't even paying lip service to the concept of 'those rights & responsbilities not directly apportioned to Congress are ceded to the States' anymore. They used to at least wear a fig leaf & claim jurisdiction based on interstate commerce. In this case, the entire process is intra-state, and carefully defined to be such. None the less, it would appear that the Supreme Court has taken a shot at the Constitution & it's protection of State's Rights, and the bullet hit the mark straight between the eyes. Here's my question... if the Attorney General's office now has jurisdiction over every little village & hamlet, why are we paying to maintain state & local governments? Wouldn't it just be more efficient to institute a national police force that the current administration (Republican or Democrat) can wield as it sees fit?

I'm not a huge supporter of medicinal marijuana usage (not opposed to it either, for that matter), but this decision is the final straw. From now on, we are all slaves to our masters in DC. Anything your locally elected representatives do or say can be overturned on Congressional or Presidential whim.

Uh-oh.

They got it wrong that time, IMO. I too am no fan of medi-maryJane, but I am seriously pissed the the will of the California electorate has been disregarded.

I wait with bated breath to see my Gover-nator's response.

Don,

Do you reject the Supremacy Clause?

Hmmm.

Since they have pissed off both liberals and conservatives with this one, maybe they SC actually made the right decision here...

No, but I thought the 10th Ammendment was worth the paper it was written on...

Quote:

---

Amendment X - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

---

I don't remember the declaration of the War on Drugs, or the recognition of the Attorney General as it's primary protagonist anywhere in the rest of the document.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Hmmm.

Since they have pissed off both liberals and conservatives with this one, maybe they SC actually made the right decision here...

---

If we outlawed popular election of Congressional Representatives, that would piss both sides off too. Are you advocating that as the right decision? Maybe we should have members of Congress appointed by the Supreme Court?

Follow the bear guys!!

Seccesion, Seccession!!!


(sorry, couldnt help it ~;) )

Impeach them !

There's way too little impeachment these days :duel:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

No, but I thought the 10th Ammendment was worth the paper it was written on...

Amendment X - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I don't remember the declaration of the War on Drugs, or the recognition of the Attorney General as it's primary protagonist anywhere in the rest of the document.

---

If you accept the Supremacy Clause Article VI of the Constitution:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land...

then, Amendment X does not apply as Federal law is stipulated as having final authority. The Clause lists three legal criteria: the Constitution, U.S. Treaties and Federal Law as trumping State law. The nature of this power was demonstrated in the 1824 Gibbons v. Ogden ruling:

''In argument, however, it has been contended, that if a law passed by a State, in the exercise of its acknowledged sovereignty, comes into conflict with a law passed by Congress in pursuance of the Constitution, they affect the subject, and each other, like equal opposing powers. But the framers of our Constitution foresaw this state of things, and provided for it, by declaring the supremacy not only of itself, but of the laws made in pursuance of it....In every such case, the act of Congress, or the treaty, is supreme; and the law of the State, though enacted in the exercise of powers not controverted, must yield to it.''

Thus, State laws cannot exceed their mandate and speak contrary Federal legislation. If a state passes law X and there is a Federal law -X, the Federal law holds sway and the other must bow before it.

When did Congress gain the right to pass drug policy laws for the country? I must have missed the article in the Constitution that grants Congress the right to pass local criminal laws on a nationwide basis. I'm guessing you're making the point that if the state had the medicinal marijuana law on the books prior to a federal law being passed, it would stand, right?

Or is it your point that whenever Congress passes a law, or a president issues an executive order, screw the states?

What's more, you never answered my question. If the Federal government has appropriated for itself the authority to issue laws at all levels, why do we need a state assembly or a city council? Why should I continue paying the salaries of my state government and my local government, if, at the end of the day, they're useless?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

If we outlawed popular election of Congressional Representatives, that would piss both sides off too. Are you advocating that as the right decision? Maybe we should have members of Congress appointed by the Supreme Court?

---

Actually, I was just being a smart-arse.

Sorry, should have added this ~;) after my first post...

Sorry, this is a bit of a touchy issue for me (an autocratic federal government assuming rights and priveleges not granted them, not maryjane as a home remedy).

The funny thing, it was the Bush White House that hammered this through. Conservatives are supposed to be for limited government, and the more local, the better. Okay, well, I guess I should be a real pain in the ass and start calling the White House switchboard and telling them I want a waiver on the right-of-way zoning on the platt for my land. If they want to get into everybody's business, so be it. While I'm at it, I'll jump their ass about why my sanitation fees are so high this year.

Maybe it's time to re-look at a Western Alliance of Baja Mexico, California, Oregon, Washington, British Columbia, Yukon, and Alaska.

What could we name that country?

Seriously though, in addition to Don's "why spend on local lawmaking and enforcement" question, I add: why are we bothering to vote at all, if the DC powermavens are just going to do whatever the hell they want to do, will of the electorate be damned?

Revolutions have been fought for less.

"Seriously though, in addition to Don's 'why spend on local lawmaking and enforcement' question, I add: why are we bothering to vote at all, if the DC powermavens are just going to do whatever the hell they want to do, will of the electorate be damned?"

Because the states still have more legislation locally than the federal government does by a lot.

To me, the issue is not with the federal government enforcing it's law that does not fit w/ the lesser state law, but the issue is with whether or not the act is constitutional in the first place. My knowledge of this act is sketchy, but its constitutionality seems a bit of a stretch to me. Perhaps, one who is more knowledgeable could point to the specifics of why it is constitutional, in regards to the interstate commerce portions, and how that applies here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

When did Congress gain the right to pass drug policy laws for the country?

---

I am unaware of any special drug immunity prohibiting Congressional action. In fact, there seems several clear examples of just the opposite: both the 18th and 21 Amendments deal with drug status. Part of the Amendment process includes Congressional approval and thus implies authority to speak to said issue. There is also the Wiley Act of 1906 that led to the creation of the FDA that serves as a simple example. What is specifically relevant here is the 1970 Controlled Substances Act.

Quote:

---

I'm guessing you're making the point that if the state had the medicinal marijuana law on the books prior to a federal law being passed, it would stand, right?

---

No, States are not sovereign and wholly independent, but beholden to a larger national structure. The Fourteenth Amendment is a simple example of this.

Quote:

---

What's more, you never answered my question. If the Federal government has appropriated for itself the authority to issue laws at all levels, why do we need a state assembly or a city council? Why should I continue paying the salaries of my state government and my local government, if, at the end of the day, they're useless?

---

Sorry, I thought it was rhetorical. The division between local, state and national government is primarily for efficiency's sake. It is hierarchical. No lower governmental entity is autonomous and subject only to its own will. The city is beholden to the state. The state is beholden to the Federal Government. This does not mean the state has no recourse, there are self-limiting provisions. They do not apply in this instance.

Since I think you are interested let me explain the Court's rationale. The Court decision was based off of earlier rulings. Since 1971 Perez v. United States the Court has held that: "the Commerce Clause permits congressional regulation of three categories: (1) the channels of interstate commerce; (2) the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and persons or things in interstate commerce; and (3) activities that “substantially affect” interstate commerce." Point three has been further elaborated on: " Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce." "Substantially affect" is given a Judicial test as found in 1995: United States v. Lopez and in 2000: United States v. Morrison. That test is: whether the statute in question obliterates the distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. The Court has found this is not the case for the following reason: Congress has undertaken to extinguish any interstate market of controlled substances. The legal precedant for this goes back as I mentioned to 1906. The defendants in this case grow or have provided by certain "John Does" marijuana for their use obstensively to relieve pain. Regardless, the Court has ruled: Congress need not accept on faith that state law will be effective in maintaining a strict division between a lawful market for “medical” marijuana and the more general marijuana market. The onus is therefore on the state to show it can in fact distinguish between the two markets in both distribution and overall control.

I saw this on the news and the very first word that came to mind was...

Cowards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Sorry, I thought it was rhetorical. The division between local, state and national government is primarily for efficiency's sake. It is hierarchical. No lower governmental entity is autonomous and subject only to its own will. The city is beholden to the state. The state is beholden to the Federal Government. This does not mean the state has no recourse, there are self-limiting provisions. They do not apply in this instance.

---

It's not more efficient. My taxes are paying for three sets of autocrats, when in reality only one is worth listening to. If all the local government does is bow to the state, who in turn bends over for the federal government, what on Earth am I paying the two middle men for?

Geez Pindar, even assuming you're right, what kind of a mess do we have in our country? We have a system where annointed judges trump congress & the white house, who trump the state, who trump the local government, who have infinitely more rights than the individual taxpayer. And you call this representational? If what you've said is true, how far we have fallen. That's not at all the system mapped out in the original constitution, but I'll grant you, it is damn good for you lawyers. But if what you say is true, don't say we have a representational republic. The only difference between us and China is that they have one party dominating people's lives, we have two.

No offense, your legal opinion is much more qualified than mine, that's all it is, your legal opinion. I sure hope you're wrong. And what kind of conservative are you that you think concentrating all the power in priestly caste up in DC is such a terrific idea?

States rights ended with the surrender at Appomatox.

I always wondered what would happen if all the states governments just gave DC the finger and told em' to shove off... I mean if you get right down to it, there is only what, a couple hundred or thousand men and women (not sure :embarassed: ) who vote to make laws, and destroy our constitutional rights. hasn't anyone realized yet, that we outnumbered them vastly? are people too dumb or ignorant? I mean if it came right down too it, if we were to rise up, we could easily dismantle our entire government, and either declare independence or re-institute a new government from scratch. I know for a fact, that the vast majority of our armed forces are more loyal to the people then to the government, and would disband. I don't think it will ever come close to this, but I've always just had an itch to be a partisan... things will change in the future I should hope, we are expiriencing the last real glimmer of the right wing conservatives fight for dominance in government. As our elder conservative population (who are the majority of voters) begin to die, I should expect that things may tilt in the other direction... or better, find mediocrity... which america seems to lack at this moment.

This ruling is a great relief. We can't have people getting rid of their nausea in their final days with natural substances in this country. It is immoral, unnatural, and leads to stronger illegal drugs.

"Medical Marijuana" is clearly a trojan horse for those who would push illicit drugs upon our children.

Thank you Supreme Court for Standing Up for America!

Signed,
The Pharmaceutical Industry


Unfreakingbelievable. What a country.

I love how they say it was based on broader social and financial implications, yah that's the reason.

O'Connor, Rehnquist, and Thomas dissent. Anyone have a link to anything Scalia said on this?

Quote:

---

The states' core police powers have always included authority to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens," said O'Connor, who was joined by two other states' rights advocates: Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas.

---

Quote:

---

O'Connor said she would have opposed California's medical marijuana law if she were a voter or a legislator. But she said the court was overreaching to endorse "making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one's own home for one's own medicinal use."

---

I'm all for just about anything that will piss off hippies (no offense, Merc), but this is sickening.

" Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce."

That's the bit that has my ire. But I see it's supported by precedent going back to 1938 and a guy growing more wheat (for his own family's consumption) than the federal regulation allowed.

I guess I'll just stew in my own juices for now. I don't care if marijuana is de-criminalised for a small or large class of people. I DO care if we fund and hold elections to vote on propositions, make those propositions law (in our jurisdiction) only to be told that some higher power trumps that decision of the people. Makes a mockery of that process.

We gotta change that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

It's not more efficient.

---

A city is immensely better placed to deal with city issues than a Federal body. The same is generally the case for states.

Quote:

---

My taxes are paying for three sets of autocrats, when in reality only one is worth listening to. If all the local government does is bow to the state, who in turn bends over for the federal government, what on Earth am I paying the two middle men for?

---

Local taxation applies only insofar as you take up residence or involve yourself in commerce within a particular locale. Federal tax is due for your citizenship and the former standards.

Quote:

---

Geez Pindar, even assuming you're right, what kind of a mess do we have in our country? We have a system where annointed judges trump congress & the white house, who trump the state, who trump the local government, who have infinitely more rights than the individual taxpayer. And you call this representational? If what you've said is true, how far we have fallen. That's not at all the system mapped out in the original constitution, but I'll grant you, it is damn good for you lawyers. But if what you say is true, don't say we have a representational republic. The only difference between us and China is that they have one party dominating people's lives, we have two.

---

I am no fan of Judicial Review. I have commented on it fairly extensively in at least two other threads recently. Even so, Judicial interpretation of law is not necessarily an abuse.

Yes, 'it' is good for lawyers.

Yes, we do have a republic

Quote:

---

No offense, your legal opinion is much more qualified than mine, that's all it is, your legal opinion. I sure hope you're wrong. And what kind of conservative are you that you think concentrating all the power in priestly caste up in DC is such a terrific idea?

---

What I outlined on the Court decision is not my opinion it is the legal standard as of June 6 by a six to three decision. The result means for those who support medical doobage: either the State must clearly delineate and control doobie use, or one would have to lobby the Congress to legalize Mary Jane.

I do not believe in concentrating law making power in the black robes of the bench. This does not mean I believe States are independent of Federal oversight. The Confederacy was wrong.

Don,

To simplify the issue consider the following: does Congress have authority to pass law that effects States?# Does the Congress have a right to protect the interests and intent of such legislation?## Today's ruling indicates it does and that was the justification given.



#The Supremacy Clause indicates this is the case.

##This also has precedent.

Well, US could have a referendum on the constitution...... ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

Well, US could have a referendum on the constitution...... ~;)

---

Actually it's called a Constitutional Convention and yes, it is legally possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Actually it's called a Constitutional Convention and yes, it is legally possible.

---

If so, it would be in order to check how large the French and Dutch part of the population is before going for it....... ~;)

"I DO care if we fund and hold elections to vote on propositions, make those propositions law (in our jurisdiction) only to be told that some higher power trumps that decision of the people. Makes a mockery of that process."

So, if some district creates a law that sends Jews to the crematories, then the national government is not in its place to stop that from happening to its citizens?

The problem is not that the Federal government is enforcing its laws, but the problem is that its laws are getting too limiting or taking too much power, in this case, and I feel that some portions of the CSA are unconstitutional. The Constitution sets a good basis on how limiting Federal can be, and that the laws should get more and more specific or menial, I cannot think of a better way to describe it, as they get closer and closer to the local level. The FDA is clearly regulating interstate commerce, whereas, I am not so sure the ladies using the marijuana were sending their goods anywhere else, or that the laws in California were in argument w/ any constitutional portion of CSA.

Okay, first things first: I support the idea that states should be able to pass medical marijuana laws, and that citizens should be able to treat themselves with prescription marijuana. Therefore, I want the same outcome as the people here who were upset with this decision.

From the article, it appears that the individual justices were also generally sympathetic to the plaintiffs.

HOWEVER, the Supreme Court's role is merely to interpret the law with respect to the Constitution and previous rulings. They have done so in this case, because the Federal government has long since had control through the interstate commerce clause over food and drug issues. The Court was merely making a decision based on current laws and the history of their interpretation.

The place to direct your attention, if you really want to see medical marijuana made legal is simple: the Congress and Executive branches. It's the laws of Congress and their enforcement by the Executive that are the real problem here. If Congress changes the drug laws so that exemptions are made for state medical marijuana, then there will be no more problem.

This is really more of a political problem than a legal one. The Court probably made the right decision on the basis of current Constitutional interpretations... even if we don't morally agree with the effect that that decision will have on the public.

At the moment, the only real way to solve this issue would be to get a consensus within the Republican party that the drug laws need to be changed. Call or write your legislators.

Of course, it probably won't do any good because politicians like to be seen as being 'tough' on drugs; but it certainly can't hurt to try. If Dobson, Limbaugh, and FOX NEWS took this up as an issue I'm sure they could get it passed. Compassionate conservatism and all.

Quote:

---

If Dobson, Limbaugh, and FOX NEWS took this up as an issue I'm sure they could get it passed. Compassionate conservatism and all.

---

They already have.



More Evidence of Out of Control Judiciary

The problem isn't the Supreme Court - they ruled based on existing case law and a reasonable interpretation of the Commerce Clause

The problem is (IMHO) with the Federal laws prohibiting marijuana. They are not effective, fair, nor a legitimate use of government power. They also have the unintended consequences of propping up organized crime and delegitimizing other laws.

Millions of Americans are high right now (hey, that could be a Frontroom thread What are you smoking now, Yes, Right Now!

We allow people to smoke and chew tobacco, which in the common forms is deadly. A man can drink his liver into toxic shock, as long as he is inside his house. We can ingest Prozac and Percoset and whatever by prescription. Kids are so doped up legally today its sad.

In a land based on freedom we don't need a nanny state. Pot is illegal because the liquor industry hooked up with the righteous religious and the law and order types, in a fit of hysteria. The war on drugs will eventually turn out to be the war on personal liberty.

The illicit status makes criminals rich, and this subverts everything from law enforcement to how people view the law. Once a person smokes pot they realize that all of the dangers were hyped. This leads to a degradation of the credibility of other laws. Once you start buying grass from a criminal you are in the criminal world, ready to move to the next level of criminality.

I don't smoke pot. I'm tested routinely and am in a position where I need to be 100% unimpaired. But these anti-dope laws are just plain stoopid, and now peeps who benefit from medical treatment based on marijuana will suffer.

That's not right.

ichi :bow: