Ron Paul: Legalizing Marijuana Is a State's Constitutional Right

www.indecisionforever.com ^ | May 19, 2009 | Dennis DiClaudio

[Yosemitest]

Ron Paul: Legalizing Marijuana Is a State's Constitutional Right

Ron Paul recently told all 23 members of Air America's listening audience that he is strongly in support of state sovereignty concerning the legalization of the sticky icky pot weed…

He said that he believes that the U.S. Constitution gives the fifty states the right to legalize hemp production or marijuana. He said the issue was a matter of personal liberty but added that drug users should not be entitled to government-funded treatment if they abuse legalized drugs.

Not in a free market America, they shouldn't. That would make them a burden on society. Instead, they should seek treatment on reality television, where their struggles can be put to good use entertaining fellow drug users.

"If drugs are legal and people misuse them, then they do it at their own risk," he said. Bottom line, said Paul: "I do trust individuals to make their own decisions."

And that's when everybody listening to him realized that Ron Paul has never met anybody who has ever been on drugs ever.

I'm in favor of legalizing — or at least regulating — a lot of drugs, particularly marijuana. But I won't even trust my pothead friends to make decisions concerning the CD player most of the time.*

.

[Yosemitest]

"The war on drugs is a total disaster and failure."

I agree.
It's because we're not serious about fighting it!
If we start publicly executing these drug dealers, and punish the users like Thailand does, then the drug trade will drop.

[Wolfie]

Au contraire. The Commerce Clause, indeed, the entire Constitution, means what 5 out of 9 lifetime political appointees say it means. And THAT was a neat trick pulled off by the Founding Fathers.

(And spare me the woulda, shoulda, couldas - that’s the reality).

[R. Scott]

Interstate commerce clause again?
A good deal of pot has been grown in a nearby county and sold locally, none goes interstate.

[Yosemitest]

And if one defends the use of marijuana, and other ILLEGAL drugs, then that person is NOT a conservative, period.

Most likely, they're a pothead.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Exactly.

[Wolfie]

Even if we had those laws, the first time they lined up a lily white kid from the Main Line against the wall for selling pot to his college friends, they’d be repealed.

[Ken H]

No, I DIDN'T ask for it. In fact, I'm fighting it.

So in your opinion, which of the two got it right on the Commerce Clause... Scalia or Thomas?

______________________________________________________

Scalia: ...the authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws governing intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce. --J. Scalia, concurring in Gonzales v Raich

_____________________________________________________

Thomas: Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. 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.

--J. Thomas, dissenting in Gonzales v Raich

[TejanoJim]

Ron Paul is correct. If someone desires to abuse their body by using marijuana, then they have every right to do so. It’s not like our laws are going to stop them. In fact, we are not winning this war on drugs. Legalizing, taxing and educating people on drugs, like they do with alcohol and tobacco, is the way to do it. Most Americans are smart enough to avoid drugs...we don’t need the government to tell us what’s good or bad for us. 

[tbpiper]

For me, people like that are WORSE than liberals.

Actually, libertines are worse than liberals.

[tacticalogic]

But the real point is this: Americans are children, incapable of consistent thought. If we like the law, then we say Congress has the power.

Speak for yourself. The principle here is the proper means by which the US Constitution should be interpreted by the Court, and applied by our representatives in Congress.

You either have an enduring document - something with a fixed meaning that remains unchanged unless and until it's altered by the process of amendment, or you have some ephemeral something that means whatever you think it ought to mean today.

It's not that hard.

[Wolfie]

I don’t know how anyone can read Scalia’s comments, which is now the Law of the Land, and not know that Obamacare’s health insurance mandate is Constitutional.

[R. Scott]

I remember when some States had a life sentence for possession of a single marijuana cigarette, Texas among them. It didn’t slow the popularity of pot.

[Wolfie]

No it’s not that hard. We have an ephemeral something that means whatever they say it means. You know our history, how can you say otherwise? Not what we were MEANT to have, or what you THINK we should have, but what we ACTUALLY have.
Decades and decades (indeed, the entire lifespan of our Nation) trending in one direction: An all powerful Federal Government. I’m not saying I agree with it, but that’s the reality. Better to know what the playing field really is, and adjust your expecations accordingly.

[tacticalogic]

I don’t know how anyone can read Scalia’s comments, which is now the Law of the Land, and not know that Obamacare’s health insurance mandate is Constitutional.

I read Joseph Story's comments:

Here's an excerpt:

"The question comes to this, whether a power, exclusively for the regulation of commerce, is a power for the regulation of manufactures? The statement of such a question would seem to involve its own answer. Can a power, granted for one purpose, be transferred to another? If it can, where is the limitation in the constitution? Are not commerce and manufactures as distinct, as commerce and agriculture? If they are, how can a power to regulate one arise from a power to regulate the other? It is true, that commerce and manufactures are, or may be, intimately connected with each other. A regulation of one may injuriously or beneficially affect the other. But that is not the point in controversy. It is, whether congress has a right to regulate that, which is not committed to it, under a power, which is committed to it, simply because there is, or may be an intimate connexion between the powers. If this were admitted, the enumeration of the powers of congress would be wholly unnecessary and nugatory. Agriculture, colonies, capital, machinery, the wages of labour, the profits of stock, the rents of land, the punctual performance of contracts, and the diffusion of knowledge would all be within the scope of the power; for all of them bear an intimate relation to commerce. The result would be, that the powers of congress would embrace the widest extent of legislative functions, to the utter demolition of all constitutional boundaries between the state and national governments.

That's how I know Scalia is wrong.

[GlockThe Vote]

So much for that damn const right?

[Wolfie]

Yes, Scalia is wrong. And yet it’s the Law of the Land. And will be applied in every case of the like that comes before the Court. What are you going to about it? Not a damn thing.

[Yosemitest]

I recommend you read Overruling the Court.

One of the myths of our political system is that the
Supreme Court has the last word on the scope and meaning of federal law. But time
and time again, Congress has shown its dissatisfaction with Supreme Court
interpretations of laws it passes--by amending or re-enacting the legislation to
clarify its original intent and overrule a contrary Court construction.

The Supreme Court often insists that Congress cannot really "overrule"
its decisions on what a law means: The justices' interpretation has to be correct
since the Constitution gives final say to the highest court in the land. But
Congress certainly has the power to pass a new or revised law that "changes" or
"reverses" the meaning or scope of the law as interpreted by the Court, and the
legislative history of the new law usually states that it was intended to
"overrule" a specific Court decision.

Often the reversal is in highly technical areas, such as the statute of
limitations in securities-fraud cases, the jurisdiction of tribal courts on
Indian reservations, or the power of state courts to order denaturalization of
citizens. But in the last 20 years, a main target of congressional "overruling"
has been the Supreme Court's decisions in the area of civil rights.

In 1982, for example, Congress amended the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to
overrule a narrow Supreme Court holding in Mobile v. Bolden, a 1980 decision
that addressed whether intentional discrimination must be shown before the act
could be invoked. In 1988, Congress overruled another Supreme Court decision (in
the 1984 case Grove City College v. Bell) by passing the Civil Rights
Restoration Act, which broadened the coverage of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964. The legislative history of that law specifically recited that "certain
aspects of recent decisions and opinions of the Supreme Court have unduly
narrowed or cast doubt upon" a number of federal civil rights statutes and that
"legislative action is necessary to restore the prior consistent and
long-standing executive branch interpretations" of those laws.

And in 1991, Congress passed a broad, new Civil Rights Act that specifically
reversed no fewer than five Supreme Court cases decided in 1989--decisions that
severely restricted and limited workers' rights under federal antidiscrimination
laws. Led by Massachusetts Democrat Edward Kennedy in the Senate and New York
Republican Hamilton Fish, Jr., in the House, Congress acted to undo those
rulings, as well as make other changes to federal law that strengthened the
weapons available to workers against discrimination. Despite partisan contention
over the language of certain provisions (which led to last-minute-compromise
language), President George Bush the elder supported the changes. The new law
recited in its preamble that its purpose was "to respond to recent decisions of
the Supreme Court by expanding the scope of relevant civil rights statutes in
order to provide adequate protection to victims of discrimination."

****

Given the current supreme Court's track record in civil rights
cases, there can be no doubt that congressional remediation is again necessary.
In a series of cases over the past two years, the Court has been giving narrow
readings to various federal civil rights laws. And once again, an attentive
Congress can and should overrule the Court's decisions if the legislators care
about fairness in the operation of government and in the workplace.

The recent cases were decided by identical 5-4 votes: Three
conservative justices (William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas)
were joined by two centrists (Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy) to narrow
the reach of the laws at issue. Four liberal justices (John Paul Stevens, David
Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer) dissented in all of the cases,
four of which are described below.

• Last year, on the grounds of federalism, the Supreme
  Court held in Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents that persons working for
  state governments cannot sue in federal court under the Age Discrimination in
  Employment Act, which Congress adopted in 1967. Such suits, the high court said,
  were constitutionally barred by the 11th Amendment's prohibition of suits against
  states in federal court. This ruling removed 3.4 percent of the nation's total
  workforce from the federal law's protections against age bias--some 5 million
  state employees across the country.

• On the same basis as the age-discrimination case, the Court held in
  February of this year that state employees cannot sue in federal court under the
  Americans with Disabilities Act. In this ruling, Board of Trustees of the
  University of Alabama v. Garrett, state workers who alleged disabilities
  discrimination were relegated to seeking recourse through state courts, where the
  available remedies are often much weaker than those provided under federal law.

• In April of this year, the Supreme Court narrowed the reach of Title
  VI, the 1964 provision that prohibits recipients of federal financial assistance
  from discriminating on the basis of race, color, or national origin. In
  Alexander v. Sandoval, the Court held that Title VI is violated only
  if a plaintiff proves that the funded party intentionally discriminated on
  the basis of race--an interpretation that runs contrary to the rule for other
  civil rights laws (such as Title VII), which require only a showing of a
  discriminatory impact to trigger enforcement. At the same time, the justices held
  that neither public nor private recipients of federal financial aid who violate
  the nation's antidiscrimination regulations can be sued in federal court. Thus
  the state of Alabama was not vulnerable to suit when it established an "English
  only" requirement for taking a driver's license exam, even though federal
  regulations prohibit such restrictions. The only remedy, the Court held, was
  termination of federal funding to the state entity that violated the regulations
  (a sanction that entails a complicated administrative process).

• On May 29, the Court decided that civil rights litigants who bring
  suit against the government or an employer cannot collect attorney fees if the
  defendant voluntarily ceases the practice complained of or settles the claim
  before going to trial (the case was Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc., v. West
  Virginia Department of Health and Human Services). In 1976, Congress passed
  the Civil Rights Attorneys Fees Award Act to encourage lawyers to take civil
  rights cases as "private attorney generals." Such cases "vindicate public
  policies of the highest order," Congress explained when it passed the law. The
  act specified that the legal fees of "prevailing parties" would be paid by the
  losing party--generally a government that violated the plaintiffs' constitutional
  rights. As Justice Ginsburg pointed out in her dissent in the Buckhannon
  case, Congress enacted the law to "ensure that nonaffluent plaintiffs would have
  effective access to the Nation's courts to enforce ... civil rights laws." The
  effect of the Buckhannon decision is that a government body can tenaciously
  litigate a case until the last minute, then throw in the towel and evade the
  requirement of paying attorney fees. Since lawyers can no longer be sure that
  they'll be paid if they file civil rights suits, this ruling will certainly
  discourage them from taking on such cases, even those that clearly have merit.

  Two of these cases are quite easy to correct. Congress can reverse the Supreme
  Court's decision about attorney fees by simply amending the civil rights law to
  provide that a litigant is considered a prevailing party entitled to fees if the
  lawsuit "was a substantial factor" in remedial action taken by the government and
  the suit brought by the plaintiff had a "substantial basis in fact and law." That
  was the rule generally applied by the lower courts before the Supreme Court
  decision.

  The Sandoval rule can also be corrected by legislation. Congress could
  amend Title VI to provide that "any person aggrieved by the violation of any
  regulation issued pursuant to this act may bring a civil action in an appropriate
  federal court. Such actions may include suits challenging any discriminatory
  practice or policy that would be deemed unlawful if it has a disparate impact
  upon persons protected by this title."

  The Kimel and Garrett decisions are more difficult to attack. The
  Supreme Court held that the 11th Amendment to the Constitution protects states
  against suits in federal court for age or disabilities discrimination by their
  employees. Although Congress cannot overrule a constitutional determination made
  by the Court, it can condition federal financial assistance on state adherence to
  federal requirements. In 1987 the Supreme Court held in South Dakota v. Dole
  (a 7-2 decision written by Chief Justice Rehnquist, in which Justice Scalia
  joined) that Congress could insist that South Dakota increase the minimum
  drinking age to 21 as a condition of obtaining federal highway funds. In other
  words, while Congress cannot force states to do its bidding, it in effect may
  bribe them to follow federal requirements.

  Thus Congress could condition federal grants under Medicaid, Medicare, or the
  Social Security Act on the states' surrendering their 11th Amendment immunity
  under the federal acts banning discrimination based on age and disability. If a
  state wished to obtain federal funds under various social-welfare provisions, it
  would have to accede to the U.S. antidiscrimination laws and waive its immunity
  from being sued by its employees in federal court. Indeed, the 1986 Civil Rights
  Remedies Equalization Amendment specifically declared that Congress intended for
  states to waive their 11th Amendment immunity in order to receive federal
  financial assistance.

  Congress could use the same device to overrule another recent Supreme Court
  decision: last year's 5-4 holding in United States v. Morrison that the
  civil-remedy provisions of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 are
  unconstitutional. The majority held that the law exceeded congressional power
  under the Constitution's commerce clause--the first time a federal law had been
  invalidated on that basis since 1936. But Congress can counter the Court's action
  by ensuring that such civil remedies are available to victims of gender-motivated
  acts of violence through state courts. How? By making the federal funds that are
  available through Medicare or Social Security programs contingent on a state's
  provision of such remedies.

  In 1991, Congress and the first President Bush acted courageously to overrule
  manifestly narrow decisions of the Supreme Court that violated a national
  consensus against discrimination by government or by employers. Now that the
  Democrats have control of the Senate, they should make similar corrective
  legislation one of their first objectives. And who knows? This President Bush
  might even follow the lead of his father and endorse the changes.

[tacticalogic]

We have an ephemeral something that means whatever they say it means. You know our history, how can you say otherwise?

Because I can. Because it's my duty and responsibility. Because I haven't given up. And I seriously wonder why someone who seems intent on giving up and encouraging everyone else to do the same is still here and allowed to keep on doing it.

[tacticalogic]

Yes, Scalia is wrong. And yet it’s the Law of the Land. And will be applied in every case of the like that comes before the Court. What are you going to about it? Not a damn thing.

I'm going to point out that it's wrong every chance I get. And I'm not going to back down because you don't like hearing it.

[freedomfiter2]

The marijuana trade affects interstate commerce, just like the health insurance trade. That’s why Congress has the power to regulate both.

Sure, that’s why only marijuana that’s transported across state lines is illegal. Oh wait.