Posted on 10/15/2010 10:22:09 AM PDT by jazusamo
It’ll be interesting to see how the California Potheads defend their rights.
I am confident this Supreme Court - even with Kagan - will be able to show the Fed the limit of its jurisdiction. The State has rights. The Fed’s limits should be clear.
The genie is already out of the bottle.... people smoke pot as they please and the law is a joke..... it would be different if nobody was smoking pot now, and legalization would cause everyone to start smoking pot... they already smoke, this will just stop the act of wasting time and money hassling people over it....
I think the difference here is in the wording.
Recreational use has a criminal supply chain.
Medicinal use is a taxed and regulated supply chain.
I believe in state sovereignty, state’s rights.
smoking pot will cause damage to the DNA of sperm and eggs...
Well isn’t that good news for the population control freaks? /s
“Why would a statist want to get rid of anything that ensures more statism?”
If it leads to licenses, fees, authorized people/sources vs unauthorized sources, taxed and regulated farms, penalties for growing your own, jail for not reporting sales (taxes)...it’s statism and control over people.
It also has political overtones- vote for me, the other guy wants to take your pot and soshacurity away.
Also - people don’t seem to fathom that the Mexican ‘cartel’ people will NOT let their business just die on the vine. What’s going on today south of the border will likely move north, bigtime.
“If it leads to licenses, fees, authorized people/sources vs unauthorized sources, taxed and regulated farms, penalties for growing your own, jail for not reporting sales (taxes)...it’s statism and control over people.”
That’s true. I guess Holder and his ilk have weighed the statist benefits of legalization/criminalization very carefully and have made their choice. I bet he’s scared that no one will bother to get the licenses or pay the taxes on a weed that will grow almost anywhere.
Freegards
Ah, so then you don’t think that the USSC will act in such a manner as to invalidate the Constitution they are sworn to uphold?
Consider that they have assigned themselves the position of declaring that the Constitution says whatever they say that it says; this results in them being able to alter or add-to the Constitution w/o going through that pesky Legislature which is the only Constitutionally authorized branch of government to make or alter laws [including the Amendment of the Constitution].
{If the Judiciary can just ‘reintrepret’ the constitution & laws then why do we even need a Legislature, whose job it is to make/alter law?}
1) Keelo v. New London; the USSC declared that Eminent Domain *CAN* be used to seize private property and given to another private entity for the development thereof pursuant to private business. This is counter to the portion of the 5th Amendment which says “nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation.” There is a REQUIREMENT that it be for public use. Note that the word USE invalidates the governments claim that the eminent domain was legitimate because of the “public BENEFIT” resultant in the projected (not actual) increase in tax-revenue.
IE, they said that Larceny is a-ok should it have the Government Seal-of-approval. {Ironically violating the 14th Amendment...}
2) Roe v. Wade; the USSC acted contrary to the 10th Amendment and invalidated ALL state laws protecting their unborn citizens.
3) The USSC has declared that the Constitutional prohibition on Ex Post Facto laws ONLY applies to criminal law; this allows the Congress to make/apply Ex Post Facto laws with respect to tax laws... yet violations of those same tax-laws are prosecuted in a CRIMINAL court.
4) The refusal of the USSC [and even lower courts] to hear cases against Obama’s eligibility are, in fact, refusals to see that the “laws are faithfully executed.”
5) The interstate commerce clause abuse; Wicard v. Fillburn IIRC.
The reason that so MUCH of what the federal government does is contrary to the Constitution is because the Constitution was designed for a government of VERY limited scope & power.
Do I think that the Supremes will see it that way? No. I expect them to rule against the states, if and when it gets that far.
I think Holder has no choice but to say that he’ll enforce Federal law in a state that has declared something to be legal. What else could he say? He’s the AG.
Look at the states that are looking at state laws that go against Federal gun control, if Holder endorses legal cannabis here, then he’s endorsing whatever state it is (Ohio? Montana?) that will overturn Fed firearms control.
After the first of the year possession of less than an ounce (which is a lot these days) is a mere infraction. Fine will be a maximum of $100 with no court, no arrest just a ticket. Arnold signed the law a week or so ago.
That is a good point.
Freegards
>I am not well-versed in Constitutional law. My perspective suggests that it should be left up to the states to decide to de-criminalize pot.
Um, that’s exactly what I said.
The ONLY reason that Prohibition was legal was because we amended the constitution to bar it [18th Amendment]; no such amendment exists with respect to marijuana, narcotics, fully-automatic weapons, etc and it is FOR THAT REASIN that all such restrictions imposed by the federal government thereon are invalid.
>Do I think that the Supremes will see it that way? No. I expect them to rule against the states, if and when it gets that far.
Agreed. And I just gave you a little list that illustrates just how the USSC does NOT follow the Constitution.
Yeah, we are on the same page.
The whole marijuana law thing as it stands now is stupid and criminalizes people for getting stoopid, even if it’s in their own house.
They created a revolving door and criminalized so many thousands of people so the state could assert their power and police would have one more thing to do, thus further justifying their existence.
And now some actuary runs the numbers and discovers the process of criminalization is a loss leader?
It costs the government $15,000 to prosecute a case?
and that doesn’t include incarceration.
The state has already estimated they can reduce their burdened costs by millions if not billions!
Lame, Lame, Lame.
“It’s one of those things; if it fails there’s no way to put the Jeanie back in the bottle. It will be like enforcing prohibition after booze was legal for two hundred years.”
Booze wasn’t just legal for 200 years; it has been integral to human social experience for millenia. Marijuana will never reach that level, in my opinion. But it does have its adherents, so how about we simply wait less than 200 years to re-outlaw it?
I am against Prop 19 but this is the best reason yet to vote for it. Didn’t Holder say last year that he wasn’t going to use federal resource to go after marijuana busts? Isn’t this a change of course.
Well, Californians would probably lose at the Supreme Court level if and when the first person to appeal his/her federal conviction (if it goes that far) but it will be fun to watch the states fight the fed and vice versa, just as it will be fun to watch conservatives assert the Commerce Clause against the right of the state to legalize MJ.
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.