States don't have rights, they have powers, as does the Federal Government. However powers of the states are many, while those of the federales are limited to those specifically granted to them in the Constitution. I don't see anything in there about regulating intrastate commerce in Pot, or anything else for that matter. Growing for your own use isn't even commerce,let alone intestate commerce.
I don't see anything in there about regulating intrastate commerce in Pot, or anything else for that matter. Growing for your own use isn't even commerce,let alone intestate commerce.
you, me, and most others see it that way, but the darned fools in Washington D.C. don't. Even if you could provide proof positive that your pot came from your backyard, you never sold it, never shared it, and only used it within the confines of your house, somehow via interstate commerce, the feds can bust you.
On the contrary, according to the original Constitution the states have the RIGHT to not ratify any amendment with which they do not agree. Also, they have the RIGHT not to be forcefully compelled to do so.
Sure, states have powers not specifically delegated to the federal government. They also have rights that were supposed to serve as a check to federal interference.
Also, there are many instances in which the federal government has overstepped its limits set forth by the Constitution. This case is another such example. Our state governments are routinely overruled by federal courts in cases which deal with the sole rights and powers of state goverment.
IMHO, it looks like a beeline towards socialism or quasi-monarchy.
What gets me is the fact few people seem to understand that the phrase 'among the several states' of the commerce clause means JUST THAT-
Commerce AMONG the states...like if the state of Texas trades cotton for some pineapples from the state of Hawaii.
It has absolutely NOTHING to do with any physical, geographical land mass, only the political entities known as states.