Feds Oppose California's Bid to Legalize Marijuana

aol ^ | October 15, 2010

[Battle Hymn of the Republic]

I think I am actually going to vote yes for this.

it will bring about another state's rights problem for Obama which will help other states for things like immigration, health care, etc?

[MadIsh32]

Precisely.

If we are able to get liberals to fight for the 10th amendment and states rights (via legalizing pot here) we’d kill any argument they have against states opting out of the new health care bill or a myriad of issues.

I am hoping that this will further split liberals and force the administration to bow to the 10th amendment

[Clock King]

The States should arrest the Feds and force a crisis. To Hell with the Drug War, it’s all about power.

[Irish Eyes]

This so funny, California has just about banned smoking everywhere. However they want to make smoking Marijuana legal.

[titanicsuccess]

Congress realized it did not have the authority under the Constitution to outlaw alcohol, so it passed a Constitutional Amendment (18th), and later recended it with the passage of the 21st Amendment. That being the case, then where is the Constitutional Amendment allowing the Federal Government to make it illegal to have drugs? Hint: There isn’t one!

So how did Congress achieve this feat? Simply, they bastardized the “Commerce Clause”. The exact same clause that’s been there from the beginning, the just gave it new meaning.

[Chode]

lets see... there's a FEDERAL law against illegal aliens that the FEDERAL govt won't let the states enforce,

YET... they get pizzed off if said states don't enforce other FEDERAL laws???

if they are federal laws, let the feds enforce them...

[KoRn]

I can’t think of a good reason why there are federal laws regarding marijuana....

[SunkenCiv]

Nothin’ but an alibi for later. Thanks george76.

[DNME]

Wasn’t “states rights” the root cause behind the First Civil War?

The way I understand it, several states endorsed a certain unpalatable farming practice that other states and Big Brother opposed. But they wouldn’t abandon that practice so Big Brother picked a fight with them and eventually beat them into the ground, leading to the eventual outlawing of the practice.

Or so I’ve heard.

[Clump]

You nailed it!

[zeugma]

if they are federal laws, let the feds enforce them...

Yup. CA needs to tell the feds to get bent. Could you inagine every single case of a citizen smoking a joint being forced into federal court? LOL. I'm sure that will go over well.

[BAW]

Will the fed sue CA for legalizing marijuana contrary to federal law . . the same way the fed sued AZ for enacting a law that is the same as federal law? Oh, never mind.

[Eric Blair 2084]

Somebody stole trumandogz screen name and password and is posting in their name.

This doesn’t sound like him/her.

[publiusF27]

Since when does the Constitution give the Feds the right to tell a state that it can’t legalize anything, if it decides to.

Since Gonzalez vs Raich in 2005 on this particular issue.

I thought Justice Thomas got that one right in his dissent, but oh well... He said:

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....If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined," while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite." The Federalist No. 45, at 313 (J. Madison).

[muddler]

Two groups are pissed about this, The drug warriors and the drug cartels.

They can both go piss up a rope.

[secondamendmentkid]

“Will the fed sue CA for legalizing marijuana contrary to federal law . . the same way the fed sued AZ for enacting a law that is the same as federal law? Oh, never mind.”

You beat me to the punch here. That is a pre-election ploy by Holder to keep wolves at bay. Rest assured, no Federal action will occur here in the premiere red state.

[conimbricenses]

Also notice who voted with the majority on the court in that case to affirm the feds over the states in medical marijuana. It was a Stevens opinion, joined by Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer, and Kennedy. We’re told that medical marijuana is a “liberal” issue but the court’s liberal block voted to restrict it, true to their authoritarian ways.

[publiusF27]

Don’t forget Scalia, who concurred in the decision of the court but wrote his own opinion. The main dissent was by O’Connor, joined by Rhenquist and Thomas, and Thomas also wrote a separate dissent.

[conimbricenses]

Scalia is great on everything except for criminal law. Something about crime converts him over into authoritarian mode, wherein cops can do no wrong and the federal government can act as centralized and all-encompassing as it wants to.

[La Enchiladita]

But sanctuary cities, which also defy federal law, are OKAY.