[jammer]

No, it's not. It must take some rigor, because you cannot seem to get the point. If 70% of people oppose, then give the government the right to outlaw it with an amendment.

Just because a USSC decision was made doesn't make it "Constitutional." I HAVE read Marbury vs Madison. They take it unto themselves, as might makes right, but that doesn't make Dred Scott, Roe v. Wade, or anything else Constitutional--only nominally Constitutional. And we can--and should--insist on courts following the Constitution.

And you are wrong--I have no dog in this fight except the Constitution. Don't ever reply to me again. Your assertion about my motives is wrong, dishonorable and reprehensible.

[Reagan Man]

>>>It must take some rigor, because you cannot seem to get the point. If 70% of people oppose, then give the government the right to outlaw it with an amendment.

A Constitutional amendment isn't required in this specific case. Congress can legislate under the Commerce Clause. The ONLY issue was one of delegation, can Congress delegate it's legislative authority to an executive branch agency. Again, under fairly settled law, Congress can do so, as long as it limits the discretion of the agency and provides the overall structure and guidance to the agency in the grant of delegation, and so long as the agency follows established principles of administrative law, as in due process, review and comment, etc.

>>>Don't ever reply to me again.

LOL This is a free and open conservative forum, for the exchange of political ideas, opinions, beliefs, values and facts. If you don't like what I have to say, mister thin skin, too bad.

[Clinging Bitterly]

I hate pot. It's sort of underrated what the current 3 grams for 50 bucks stuff does, it is not your father's weed, and I personally know long term potheads suffering the effects mentioned upthread, everything from incontinence to psychotic episodes. As are some drinkers, and some tobacco smokers.

Bad as the stuff is, you see we have plenty of other legal ways to get into the fix in which some of these folks imagine they are not. But bottom line, there does not seem to be anything in the constitution that authorizes the federal government to ban and criminalize it's use.

80 some years ago, Congress deemed it necessary to pass a constitutional amendment in order to grant the government the power to ban alcohol. This issue is no different. The operative words in the constitution have not changed, if Congress wants to ban pot, they need an amendment to do it. That they have done so without such an amendment does not alter the fact that the legitimate power does not exist.

It's a tough situation because contemporary courts have, for whatever reason, overlooked the plank in the collective eye that is the legislative history behind prohibition, but it is there nevertheless.

That some people are irresponsible enough to ruin their minds and bodies with the stuff may well be a good reason to regulate it's use, but that reasoning would be as applicable where there is a visible presence of irresponsible people harming themselves and/or others with things like handguns and assault weapons. In the latter, we argue every day that reason is not good enough, we argue that there is no government power to do so. I don't see much difference between the two issues.

States have clear authority to criminalize behaviour that actually harms others. A gunman can be prosecuted for ADW, murder, menacing, etc. A drunk, and as easily, a pothead can be prosecuted for DWI, child neglect, stealing to get the money to buy dope, and so on. Those things are all the protection we need for the various evil scourges, and are things with which few of us have any problem at all.

Dave in Eugene

[truth_seeker]

Just because a USSC decision was made doesn't make it "Constitutional."

It has been my understanding that, a major role for the USSC is to rule, when conflicts arise, as to just what IS Constitutional.

Over time, courts with "different" makeups might arrive at different decisions, covering the SAME words in the original document.

But there IS no higher decision making body than them. So for the time of each of their rulings, it IS Constitutional.

You (and another later court) may differ, but your different opinion does NOT carry the weight of their role for determining what is for the time, Constitutional.

That is our system. Not perfect. But better than any other.