Supreme Court Medical Marijuana

[nokona13]

That seems pretty weak to me. But then, it's kind of a gray area where basically you can read what you want to into it. Much the way I'm sure rabid anti-abortion types feel about the privacy reasoning in roe.

[Felix_Nietsche]

.......US Constitution has been Utterly Destroyed.

The founders vision of checks and balances between the branches of government (Judicial, Legislative, and Excutive) has been officialy destroyed in this decion. The Judicial Branch is now by FAR the most powerful branch in the US Govt.

The 10th amendment of the US Constitution says
"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."

When created, this amendment was a STEEL LOCK protecting the powers of the individual states and limiting the power of the Federal Govt. After all, the USA had just fought a revolution against Britain who exercised excessive CENTRALIZED power over American Sovereignty and many in the USA were leery of an all powerful central govt. Before the US Constitution, the USA operated under the articles of confederation which made the federal govt VERY, VERY Weak. So weak, that they decided to adjust power of the central govt by giving a little more power to the federal govt. The result of this adjustment was the US Constitution. The 10th Amendment was specifically added by founders to keep the power of the federal govt in check. In theory the 10th amendment should make sure there is ZERO overlap in jurisdiction. The worked for about 100 years. Then the judicial branch used the "interstate commerce clause" of the US Constitution to give that federal govt new powers like how many gallons a toilet may flush.

If you except this premise that the 10th amendment should prevent overlapping jurisdiction between the state and federal govt, can anyway explain to me why selling .001 of an ounce of marijuana WITHIN state boundries is a state crime but selling 100 lbs of marijuana WITHIN state boundries is a FEDERAL crime? The only difference is QUANTITY. If you take this challenge please provide the clause in the constitution that gives the federal govt this power. I don't think you can find a QUANTITY CLAUSE in the US Constitution.

The Answer is: The federal drug laws are UNconstitutional while STATE DRUG LAWSs ARE constitutional. This means is the state penalty for selling 100lbs of MariJane is 5 years and the federal penalty is 20 years. Then the perp should be sentence to five years. Because of the 10th amendment, the federal govt has ZERO jurisdiction. ZERO! NADA!

The judges who voted to uphold the 10th Amendment were:
Clarence Thomas
Renquist
Sandra O'Conner

I am SHOCKED that Scalia did not vote with the minority.
I expected O'Conner to strike down the 10th amendment (after all she voted against political speech 60 days before an election (McCain-Feingold)) but for Scalia to vote this way shocks me. I feel like he stabbed conservatives in the back. Although Clarence Thomas has made unconstitutional decisions before, I'm proud of his vote today. In his ruling he wrote in effect that this decision gives powers to the Federal govt which can abused in untold ways. Kudos to Thomas and a utter disappointment to Scalia. As for the five 'liberal' members of the supreme court they're brain dead anyway so their decision was no surprise.

This is a sad day for the 10th amendment.

[ QUOTE ]
.......US Constitution has been Utterly Destroyed.

The founders vision of checks and balances between the branches of government (Judicial, Legislative, and Excutive) has been officialy destroyed in this decion. The Judicial Branch is now by FAR the most powerful branch in the US Govt.

The 10th amendment of the US Constitution says
"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."

When created, this amendment was a STEEL LOCK protecting the powers of the individual states and limiting the power of the Federal Govt. After all, the USA had just fought a revolution against Britain who exercised excessive CENTRALIZED power over American Sovereignty and many in the USA were leery of an all powerful central govt. Before the US Constitution, the USA operated under the articles of confederation which made the federal govt VERY, VERY Weak. So weak, that they decided to adjust power of the central govt by giving a little more power to the federal govt. The result of this adjustment was the US Constitution. The 10th Amendment was specifically added by founders to keep the power of the federal govt in check. In theory the 10th amendment should make sure there is ZERO overlap in jurisdiction. The worked for about 100 years. Then the judicial branch used the "interstate commerce clause" of the US Constitution to give that federal govt new powers like how many gallons a toilet may flush.

If you except this premise that the 10th amendment should prevent overlapping jurisdiction between the state and federal govt, can anyway explain to me why selling .001 of an ounce of marijuana WITHIN state boundries is a state crime but selling 100 lbs of marijuana WITHIN state boundries is a FEDERAL crime? The only difference is QUANTITY. If you take this challenge please provide the clause in the constitution that gives the federal govt this power. I don't think you can find a QUANTITY CLAUSE in the US Constitution.

The Answer is: The federal drug laws are UNconstitutional while STATE DRUG LAWSs ARE constitutional. This means is the state penalty for selling 100lbs of MariJane is 5 years and the federal penalty is 20 years. Then the perp should be sentence to five years. Because of the 10th amendment, the federal govt has ZERO jurisdiction. ZERO! NADA!

The judges who voted to uphold the 10th Amendment were:
Clarence Thomas
Renquist
Sandra O'Conner

I am SHOCKED that Scalia did not vote with the minority.
I expected O'Conner to strike down the 10th amendment (after all she voted against political speech 60 days before an election (McCain-Feingold)) but for Scalia to vote this way shocks me. I feel like he stabbed conservatives in the back. Although Clarence Thomas has made unconstitutional decisions before, I'm proud of his vote today. In his ruling he wrote in effect that this decision gives powers to the Federal govt which can abused in untold ways. Kudos to Thomas and a utter disappointment to Scalia. As for the five 'liberal' members of the supreme court they're brain dead anyway so their decision was no surprise.

This is a sad day for the 10th amendment.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry ... but you're nuts. This decision somehow makes the judicial branch "by FAR the most powerful branch of the US Govt"??? Why is your beef with the Supreme Court for upholding a law validly enacted by Congress, AND NOT WITH CONGRESS FOR ENACTING THE STUPID LAW IN THE FIRST PLACE?

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
can anyway explain to me why selling .001 of an ounce of marijuana WITHIN state boundries is a state crime but selling 100 lbs of marijuana WITHIN state boundries is a FEDERAL crime

[/ QUOTE ]

Because congress decided it didn't want to waste federal resources prosecuting small amounts.

[ QUOTE ]
If you except this premise that the 10th amendment should prevent overlapping jurisdiction between the state and federal govt

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what the decision seems to stand for. Because the federal government has decided to regulate this commercial activity (which, the court found affects interstate commerce) then the states can't "overrule" valid federal law.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Congress does NOT have the authority to regulate INTRA-state commerce.
If you understood my post, you will know this is based on the 10th amendment. In otherwords, the BURDEN OF PROVING JURISDICTION IS ON THE FEDERAL govt. The federal govt must prove their jurisdiction based on the constitution, otherwise the state govt has the power and the federal govt has ZERO influence in the matter. Three supreme court justices agreed while six disagreed. I guess by your logic, then at LEAST three supreme court justices are nuts. I personal think the number is 6 or 7 but everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Anyway, California Medical Marijuana laws were about marijuana:
1. Grown in California
2. Perscribed in California
3. Used in California

If you bothered to read my post or the constitution, you know the 10th amendment gives states carte blanc power over the federal govt UNLESS the constitution SPECIFIES a power belonging to the federal govt.

Since I'm so 'nuts', I CHALLENGE YOU to show me the clause in the US Constitution that gives the Congress the power to regulate INTRA state activities. Afterall, you don't want me to think you are just talking out your a$$ about a subject you know nothing about. Do you? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

If you want to plagerize Scalia's logic, he argued the INTER-state commerce clause applied to an INTRA-state activity. For a SMART, INFORMED, and EDUCATED person like yourself I'm sure this won't take more than 5 minutes. I'll start the clock now. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Felix_Nietsche]

"Because congress decided it didn't want to waste federal resources prosecuting small amounts."
************************************************** *****
So are you conceding that TECHNICALLY, states are violating the 'law of the land' (constitution) by prosecuting petty drug offences since they legally have no jurisdiction?

Consider this, money is spent prosecuting petty drug offences. Does it cost the state govt LESS to prosecute petty drug offences than it would the federal govt? Why does it matter if the money comes from the federal govt rather that the state govt?


"Because the federal government has decided to regulate this commercial activity (which, the court found affects interstate commerce) then the states can't "overrule" valid federal law."
************************************************** *********
Forget what the court says. I want to see how YOU THINK. How does marijauna:
1. Grown in California
2. Perscribed in California
3. Used in California

......trigger the inter-state commerce clause?
I'm serious. Can *YOU* make a logical argument how these INTRA-state activities trigger the INTER-state commerce clause? 3 supreme court justices are saying you can not.

Again, I REALLY want to hear *YOU* make an argument how the INTER-state commerce clause applies....

[elwoodblues]

Frankly in our current economy almost any commercial activity affect interstate commerce. Note that the Constitution doesn't require a substantial affect on interstate commerce. Further, while a particular transaction might not affect interstate commerce, the sale of drugs (in general) affects interstate commerce. Thus, the federal government has the constitutional authority to regulate the activity.

Further, it doesn't take too much imagination to envision a scenario where a foreign (out-of-state) individual sees a california doctor and is prescribed marijuana. It doesn't take too much imagination to envision a California resident travelling between states with their prescription marijuana.

[ QUOTE ]
So are you conceding that TECHNICALLY, states are violating the 'law of the land' (constitution) by prosecuting petty drug offences since they legally have no jurisdiction?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. The states also have jurisdiction under their general police powers so long as they don't create laws that are counter to the federal law.

[natedogg]

From the dissent: If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything--and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.

Freedom in the USA is at the point of being little more than a quaint notion. Anyone who thinks any of our "liberal" leaders are actually in favor of liberty is highly confused. You should have to look no further than the authoritarian leftists on the court. Our liberty is under assault by all sides.

natedogg

[ QUOTE ]
Congress does NOT have the authority to regulate INTRA-state commerce.
If you understood my post, you will know this is based on the 10th amendment. In otherwords, the BURDEN OF PROVING JURISDICTION IS ON THE FEDERAL govt. The federal govt must prove their jurisdiction based on the constitution, otherwise the state govt has the power and the federal govt has ZERO influence in the matter. Three supreme court justices agreed while six disagreed. I guess by your logic, then at LEAST three supreme court justices are nuts. I personal think the number is 6 or 7 but everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Anyway, California Medical Marijuana laws were about marijuana:
1. Grown in California
2. Perscribed in California
3. Used in California

If you bothered to read my post or the constitution, you know the 10th amendment gives states carte blanc power over the federal govt UNLESS the constitution SPECIFIES a power belonging to the federal govt.

Since I'm so 'nuts', I CHALLENGE YOU to show me the clause in the US Constitution that gives the Congress the power to regulate INTRA state activities. Afterall, you don't want me to think you are just talking out your a$$ about a subject you know nothing about. Do you? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

If you want to plagerize Scalia's logic, he argued the INTER-state commerce clause applied to an INTRA-state activity. For a SMART, INFORMED, and EDUCATED person like yourself I'm sure this won't take more than 5 minutes. I'll start the clock now. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Man, I read your posts, and you're like the Yogi Berra of the Politics forum. "Carte blanc"? God bless you. Keep up the good work.

Read my response, Hemmingway. I'm not arguing whether the decision is right or wrong. I am curious why you are attacking the Supreme Court so vehemently yet you give Congress -- the outfit which enacted the law that you claim oversteps constitutional bounds -- a free pass.