Skip to main content

View Diary: Got An Answer on Legalized Marijuana, Mr. Holder? (31 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm saying you can't be a states' rights (0+ / 0-)

    person just when it is convenient - ie when you agree with the state position. If you believe in states' rights, fine. But the federal government has broad powers to regulate interstate commerce, which the SC has said would include marijuana. I think the law is wrong, but I don't think states can nullify it.

    You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

    by sewaneepat on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 02:59:52 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Ah, but can you follow the law only when it is (0+ / 0-)

      convenient?  The 10th Amendment is still law, and it's pretty plain law, much easier to understand than some of the other Amendments.  I seem to remember a lot of ranting about Bush ignoring the Bill of Rights, but silence when the 10th is ignored.  I never argued for convenience as a determining factor as to when the law applies.  It always applies.  If you don't like some of the implications, get it changed.  There are legal mechanisms for doing so.

      When banjos are outlawed, only outlaws will have banjos.

      by Bisbonian on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 05:28:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Again, interstate commerce, which is in the (0+ / 0-)

        Constitution.

        The Constituion does not mention healthcare. do you think Medicare and the ACA are unconstitutional?

        You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

        by sewaneepat on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 06:17:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, the interstate commerce clause could apply, (0+ / 0-)

          if the pot was being sold across state lines.  Perfectly legitimate application of the law.  But it has nothing to do with growing your own at home, or in state growers supplying local medical dispensaries.

          And yes, Medicare and the ACA are probably unconstitutional.  But one could argue that the States have bought off on the system (Medicare, at least), and support it, so on it goes, to no real harm.  There is a lot of real harm going on with what the Feds are doing to Medical marijuana, in California and Montana in particular.

          When banjos are outlawed, only outlaws will have banjos.

          by Bisbonian on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 06:20:19 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The Supreme Court has ruled in Gonzalez v Raisch (0+ / 0-)

            that the interstate commerce clause applies to homegrown marijuana in CA based on the ruling in 1942 re Wickard v Filburn which said that a farmer growing his own hay for his own cattle involves interstate commerce.

            I don't understand that the states have bought off on Medicare since the states have nothing to do with Medicare.

            And the ACA has been held to be constitutional. Just this summer in case you missed it.

            You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

            by sewaneepat on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 09:22:24 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Would that be the same SCOTUS.... (0+ / 0-)

      ....that gave us Citizens United and which "elected" Bush in 2000?  Scalia twisted the meaning of "interstate commerce" inside-out to give the DEA authority to prosecute people growing pot in their basements for recreational and/or medical use.  No interstate commerce here, except in the imagination of the drug Nazis.

      As an ex-attorney, I am extremely skeptical about the legitimacy of decisions by the Rehnquist or Roberts courts and especially so in this particular area.

      See the children of the earth who wake to find the table bare, See the gentry in the country riding out to take the air. ~~Gordon Lightfoot, "Don Quixote"

      by Panama Pete on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 10:31:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  As an ex-attorney, you should know that it (0+ / 0-)

        doesn't make a bit of difference whether you are skeptical about their decisions or not - any more than it makes any difference whether or not some people still think the ACA is unconstitutional. They are still the law of the land whether you (or anyone else) approves until another SC decision changes it.

        As a matter of fact, Gongalez v Raich was based on Wickard v Filburn (1942) and the Chief Justice in that case was Harland Stone. And in that decision they stated

        "At the beginning Chief Justice Marshall described the Federal commerce power with a breadth never yet exceeded. He made emphatic the embracing and penetrating nature of this power by warning that effective restraints on its exercise must proceed from political rather than from judicial processes."
        So the commerce clause has been recognized from the beginning as a strong federal power. It was practically unchallenged until US v Lopez in 1995 which for some strange reason decided handgun regulation exceeded the power of Congress under the commerce clause and later in 2000 in US v Morrison decided the Violence against Women Act exceeded Congress's power.

        You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

        by sewaneepat on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 04:38:16 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site