Ripley: I say we take off and nuke the entire state from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Burke: Ho-ho-hold on one second. This state has a substantial dollar value attached to it.
Ripley: They can bill me.
Posted on 11/19/2006 8:36:41 AM PST by Wolfie
Tentative ruling nixes challenge to medical marijuana
A judge in San Diego indicated Thursday that he would reject three counties' challenge to California's medical marijuana law, saying the state could enforce a law allowing people to use the drug even if the federal government bans it.
Federal officers are free to enforce the U.S. law prohibiting possession and cultivation of marijuana, but that doesn't prohibit California from allowing medical use of the drug under its own law, Superior Court Judge William Nevitt said. The voters did just that when they approved Proposition 215 in 1996.
The two laws would be in conflict only if California required its residents or officials to do something that specifically was banned by the federal law, Nevitt said. California's decision to allow medicinal use of marijuana doesn't qualify, he said.
After issuing his tentative ruling, the judge heard arguments from lawyers for San Diego, Merced and San Bernardino counties, the state and medical marijuana advocates, but did not issue a final decision. A ruling is due within 90 days.
Supporters of the medical marijuana law said they were encouraged.
"The core issue is nothing less than the integrity of our democratic process,'' said Adam Wolf, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, which represented patients and doctors. "An overwhelming majority of California voters went to the polls 10 years ago to cast a vote for compassion. ... Three counties are saying they are above the law.''
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
What kind of twisted logic is that? That's like saying it's legal for Californians to print counterfeit money since California does not require they do that.
15% of all Californians voted in favor of Proposition 215, a public referendum. 85% either voted against it or didn't vote.
Are you a California resident? If so, you should work to overturn the law if you don't like it. If not, I don't see as though you have a dog in that fight.
Perhaps the residents of Texas would like to put folks in prison for life if convicted of growing marijuana...that would be OK too for the Strict Constructionist.
*******Federal officers are free to enforce the U.S. law prohibiting possession and cultivation of marijuana, but that doesn't prohibit California from allowing medical use of the drug under its own law,
So what happens when feds won't enforce federal laws that impact the state? Should California stop sending revenue to the IRS because the Mexican border is porous?
You're missing something. The 10th Amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."
You got the last part but left out the first part. The power to regulate commerce among the several states was delegated to the federal government by the states. Article I, Section 8, Clause 3. It's right there in black and white.
Since federal law overrides state laws to the contray, a Strict Constructionist like yourself would insist that California state officials abide by their oath of office (to preserve, protect and defend the U.S,. Constitution) and honor Article VI, Section 2 of said constitution, the Supremacy Clause.
If they do not, I'm sure a Strict Constructionist like yourself would support these state officials being brought up on charges of sedition, tried, convicted, and hanged. Yes?
Well, people who break the law have an effect on all of society. This effect is compounded when both state and federal officials look the other way.
Aside from that, marijuana use in one state has a substantial effect on the interstate commerce that Congress is constitutionally regulating. It does affect me.
Do states have an affirmative duty to enforce federal laws?
The law was initiated and passed, not by the state legislature, but by public referendum -- what some on this board have called "mob rule". Do you favor a pure democracy over a representative republic?
Ripley: I say we take off and nuke the entire state from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Burke: Ho-ho-hold on one second. This state has a substantial dollar value attached to it.
Ripley: They can bill me.
No.
Don't feed Bobby, he's a professional antagonist who owns a Nazi uniform, (seriously), and draws a check from John Walters and the ONDCP.
Ask your grandpa what "states' rights" was! it's a concept that Republicans once supported.
I just don't see where this gives the feds the power to regulate martijauna grown & consumed within California. No interstate commerce there.
Since federal law overrides state laws to the contray...
Only in areas where the constitution has delegated authority to the feds.
where's the part in section 8 about intrastate commerce?
It's not like I wear it, for crying out loud.
True. Congress has the power to regulate only interstate commerce.
But Congress also has the power under Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, to write laws Necessary and Proper to carry out their Commerce Clause regulatory efforts. Congress has a "finding" in the Controlled Substances Act which says that the in-state manufacture, possession, and commerce of marijuana has a substantial effect on Congress' interstate regulatory efforts.
"Only in areas where the constitution has delegated authority to the feds."
Yes.
See #19.
Locally grown and consumed marijuana has NOTHING to do with interstate commerce...surely even YOU can see that.
There is no provision for it at the federal level.
I don't think anyone would argue that the "found" such authority...but millions, to include some US Supreme Court Justices, would argue that they HAVE NO SUCH AUTHORITY.
Locally grown marijuana may enter interstate commerce. It has a substantial effect on the interstate commerce that Congress is constitutionally regulating.
Because of that, Congress has the power under the Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18) to write laws prohibiting the growing of mariujuana.
As to your guarantee that it will be consumed locally, gee, cross your heart and hope to die?
Yeah, right. Until you lose an issue by referendum. We'll see.
But that doesn't answer my question. My question was, "do you favor a pure democracy over a representative republic?"
Surely you agree that the absence of a state law banning something that the Federal government bans does not violate the Supremacy Clause? Thus, as long as California doesn't interfere with federal enforcement of the federal law banning marijuana, there's no problem. California could leave its laws silent on some forms of marijuana possession (or explicitly not ban these), so that state and local police don't get involved in enforcement, without interfering with federal enforcement.
Found an interest? Found the authority? No. I said nothing of the sort.
A Congressional "finding" is a conclusion reached by Congress after an examination or investigation. That formed the basis for the law.
"to include some US Supreme Court Justices"
Not enough, obviously. You lose.
I do. But we're not talking about the absence of a state law -- we're talking about a conflicting state law.
"... a state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute" ... A conflict will be found either "where compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility" or where the state "law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress".
-- EDGAR v. MITE CORP., 457 U.S. 624 (1982)
I'd say the California law fits both definitions of a "conflict".
They can have it as long as they're willing to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Sure. It's their choice.
I just don't want to listen to their incessant whining about how I have to accept their behavior and make that activity legal. They're getting as annoying as the gay homosexuals already.
Essentially, I don't think there's a way the federal government can make the states enforce marijuana laws that they don't want to. They can go on enforcing federal law, but obviously there will be fewer resources dedicated to the issue.
Not directly, no. They could withhold federal funds. The old standby.
With marijuana, some states have made enforcement a "low priority" while some others have decriminalized simple possession (they merely issue tickets with fines). But the drug remains illegal.
The federal government has been tolerant of that. But I don't think the medical marijuana laws will stand. In no small part because of the abuse of the laws by recreational users.
hmmm, did it pass? Blackbird.
Doctors are not recommending smoked marijuana -- their patients are already smoking it. They're simply validating it. If the patient wants to smoke marijuana, 11 states allow it.
ping
Yes. Of course.
My only problem was the misleading phrase, "An overwhelming majority of California voters". A cluster of voters in the San Francisco area carried the vote -- hardly an overwheling majority and not representative of all Californians.
1996 General Election Returns for Proposition 215 - Marijuana
(The number in each county indicates the percentage of the vote cast as indicated by the color.)
That map is a graphic representation of why our Founding Fathers wanted a representative republic rather than a strict democracy. A voter-driven referendum like Proposition 215 demonstrates how a motivated and organized minority of the population can push through laws that the majority of representatives in the state legislature would never pass.
Yes it passed. I just wouldn't draw any sweeping conclusions about that result, is all.
Representitive enough to pass, so you lose.
RE -- Don't feed the chicken --
--- Really, are you claiming we have professional antagonists on FR who own Nazi uniforms, and draw checks from the ONDCP?
ONDCP: Oppressive Network Drug Content Propaganda
Address:http://www.ondcp.com/
Socialists claim that Congress has the power to write laws prohibiting the growing of marijuana under the guise of regulating commerce among the States.
And as we all know, socialism is a political disease marked by delusions that a power to regulate is a power to prohibit.
What if it is grown and used strictly in-state? Interstate commerce clause and right to privacy clauses have been twisted into all sorts of bizarre contortions, including the Roe v. Wade ruling.
LOL!
Man, you don't even want sick people to have pot? Are you afraid they'll get high and start chasing jazz musicians around or something? LOL You fWO(s)D cheerleaders make me chuckle.
It's even more 'amusing', in that these same hypocrites claim its OK when both state and federal officials 'look the other way' when referendums infringe on our rights to keep & bear arms.
Socialism breeds hypocrisy.
Talk about spinning statistics. You know freepers aren't that dumb.
Are the straight homosexuals less annoying?
Dumb has nothing to do with it.
When I read phrases like "Californians approve of medical marijuana" or "Californians voted overwhelmingly for medical marijuana" I have to correct it.
California has 33 million people. 4.87 million voted to legalize medical marijuana, the bulk of them in San Francisco. That's not "California".
Better?
Refer to my post #24.
Thanks. So in your opinion all products that can cross interstate lines should be subject to the interstate commerce clause?
I think this is a stretch of the Constitution, just as "right to privacy" arguments were twisted enough to result in the legalization of abortion on demand.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.