Jump to content

Federalism


Recommended Posts

The more I research this, the more I wonder how the government works. The Judge who said the MMMA was unconstitutional I think has it backwards. If we look at Marijuana as a prohibition, like Alcohol back in 1919, the United stated enacted a ban on it, but because the Federal Government didn't have the power to do so, it had to pass a consitutional amendment. Then it repealed it in 1933, which required another amendment to repeal. Why would congress go through such lengths if it could have just declared it a controlled substance and banned it?

 

So later, we have the Controlled Substances Act. However, the constitution doesn't grant the power to the Feds to control these things. If the product is grown, cultivated, and used inside the state, the state should have final ruling on it. The feds are over stepping their bounds. Now, the Feds could say that MJ is illegal and can't cross borders with it, which is fine, but the states, as the US was setup, should have more power than the feds. WE the people have let the tides change.

 

The only way they are able to argue this is that legalizing MJ would affect INTERSTATE commerce. Meaning that less booze would be shipped across state lines basically, so that gives them the right to dictate what happens with MMJ... Oh and that it affects interstate commerce by affecting how many lbs of illegal mexican MJ is shipped into the country... WTF?

 

My research then lead me to investigate the US vs Oakland County Buyers Cooperative. It went all the way to the US supreme court. Interesting they lost, but in a good way. So the case was about whether a state could override the Controlled Substances Act(CSA) for medical necessity. The Supreme Court said NO. There is no provision to override based on medical necessity. So then the lawyers for the OCBC said well a Federal law can't override a CA law. The Supreme court said since the appeal court didn't mention it, they expressly would not comment on it. So it went back to the Circuit Court, and District Court, and was stayed, and they all just basically ignored it.

 

It was almost as if the courts went "Ahh crap, someone figured it out, lets push this one under the carpet". Knowing that it is very expensive, and the OCBC had already been through it once, that it wouldn't be pursued. But why has no one else pushed this issue? I mean except that all of these coops and what not that are getting raided are falling to IRS, not DEA, but you would think someone at some point would push the issue, and that states wouldn't be so freaking scared of the Feds if this were the case.

 

If we had a Dem governor that had a little bit of a heart or any compassion, I would think we would want to bring this case to him/her and ask that the state push the issue. unfortunately we have Snyder...

 

Based on San Diego in California refusing to allow MMJ, "The courts have made clear that federal law does not preempt California's medical marijuana law and that local officials must comply with that law," said Joe Elford, chief counsel with Americans for Safe Access (ASA).

 

You know it's funny, how Repub's keep talking about how they want it to be how it used to be back in the early 1900's, then they fight tooth and nail to prevent things like medical marijuana, when it was legal back then and the Fed's couldn't do a thing to stop it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more I research this, the more I wonder how the government works. The Judge who said the MMMA was unconstitutional I think has it backwards. If we look at Marijuana as a prohibition, like Alcohol back in 1919, the United stated enacted a ban on it, but because the Federal Government didn't have the power to do so, it had to pass a consitutional amendment. Then it repealed it in 1933, which required another amendment to repeal. Why would congress go through such lengths if it could have just declared it a controlled substance and banned it?

 

So later, we have the Controlled Substances Act. However, the constitution doesn't grant the power to the Feds to control these things. If the product is grown, cultivated, and used inside the state, the state should have final ruling on it. The feds are over stepping their bounds. Now, the Feds could say that MJ is illegal and can't cross borders with it, which is fine, but the states, as the US was setup, should have more power than the feds. WE the people have let the tides change.

 

The only way they are able to argue this is that legalizing MJ would affect INTERSTATE commerce. Meaning that less booze would be shipped across state lines basically, so that gives them the right to dictate what happens with MMJ... Oh and that it affects interstate commerce by affecting how many lbs of illegal mexican MJ is shipped into the country... WTF?

 

My research then lead me to investigate the US vs Oakland County Buyers Cooperative. It went all the way to the US supreme court. Interesting they lost, but in a good way. So the case was about whether a state could override the Controlled Substances Act(CSA) for medical necessity. The Supreme Court said NO. There is no provision to override based on medical necessity. So then the lawyers for the OCBC said well a Federal law can't override a CA law. The Supreme court said since the appeal court didn't mention it, they expressly would not comment on it. So it went back to the Circuit Court, and District Court, and was stayed, and they all just basically ignored it.

 

It was almost as if the courts went "Ahh crap, someone figured it out, lets push this one under the carpet". Knowing that it is very expensive, and the OCBC had already been through it once, that it wouldn't be pursued. But why has no one else pushed this issue? I mean except that all of these coops and what not that are getting raided are falling to IRS, not DEA, but you would think someone at some point would push the issue, and that states wouldn't be so freaking scared of the Feds if this were the case.

 

If we had a Dem governor that had a little bit of a heart or any compassion, I would think we would want to bring this case to him/her and ask that the state push the issue. unfortunately we have Snyder...

 

Based on San Diego in California refusing to allow MMJ, "The courts have made clear that federal law does not preempt California's medical marijuana law and that local officials must comply with that law," said Joe Elford, chief counsel with Americans for Safe Access (ASA).

 

You know it's funny, how Repub's keep talking about how they want it to be how it used to be back in the early 1900's, then they fight tooth and nail to prevent things like medical marijuana, when it was legal back then and the Fed's couldn't do a thing to stop it...

 

 

 

I agree,,, it is unconstitutional!!!

 

There are people in the TEA PARTY who not only support MMJ but legalization of all drugs.

Like RON PAUL!! HERMAN CANE!!

 

The people of America,,, the real people of America are taking over the Republican party!!! About Friggen Time!

 

Times and attitudes they are a changen!!

 

The Constitution as written is all I will ever support.

Local, County and State municipalities not following the Constitution are what have FXXKed this country up and only when real Americans STAND and run for local office's, will we as a nation be able to take back our country and enforce our State's and the US Constitution.

I agree,,, it is unconstitutional!!!

Edited by mosshowd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Read the outrageous Wickard vs. Filburn before you try to interpret the Constitution.

 

The Men in Black robes can make the Constitution sing whatever tune they like.

 

For extra credit try to reconcile Wickard with the 10th Amendment!

 

I would think one could sue for violation of our constitutional right to obtain our medication!!! It was done in Ontario and they won! Haven't heard how it turned out, they had 30 days to appeal or the whole law outlawing marijuana would null and void in the the providence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is.

- Charles Evans Hughes

 

If we had the hundreds of millions of dollars the big pharma has to lobby with. We would be openly growing cannabis in our yards.

 

But since we don't and not until these phoney conservatives (the supreme court included) and plutocrats at the federal level are replaced or removed from office, we have to make the changes at the local and state level that suit our needs not theirs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Read the outrageous Wickard vs. Filburn before you try to interpret the Constitution.

 

The Men in Black robes can make the Constitution sing whatever tune they like.

 

For extra credit try to reconcile Wickard with the 10th Amendment!

 

....well I'm not lawyer yet, nor a caregiver, I have only completed the first year of law school, but I can provide more information than this.

 

The Federal Government is supposed to only have powers that are enumerated to it explicitly in the Constitution, hence the wording of the 10th Amend. The Fed was given power to regulate interstate commerce, to make and enforce treaties, and to tax(and spend) towards those powers. Nowadays, most of what the Fed does is under the guise of the commerce clause, including the drug war. Remember, the Federal Government was never supposed to have a police power, that was to be left to the states and local municipalities.

 

One of the first cases to state that the Feds could regulate something based on the commerce clause was Champion v. Ames (1903)-referred to as the lottery case- in which the Supreme Court said that Congress could regulate the production of lottery tickets in one state since other states banned the production and sale of lottery tickets. They said that since lottery tickets are small and portable, it was inevitable that they would find their way from the legal market of one state to the illegal market of another state. Some interesting quotes from that cases cast the foreshadow of federal power expansion; " We should hesitate long before adjudging that an evil of such appalling character, carried on through interstate commerce, cannot be met and crushed by the only power competent to that end."; "It will be time enough to consider the constitutionality of such legislation when we must do so. The possible abuse of a power is not an argument against its existence."

 

From that case, the Feds continually expanded what they could regulate and control. FDR used the commerce clause to validate the constitutionality of much of his New Deal legislation. I won't get to much into the battle or the "change in time that saved nine", it just seems fishy that there were 5 Supreme court justices that would have declared most of the New Deal unconstitutional on the ground that the Fed never was supposed to have that kind of power. But one of them died and then the other four quickly resigned...

 

But this leads us to Wickard v. Filburn(1942), a case involving a farmer who was growing wheat he used to feed his livestock and family. The Feds prosecuted him because he was exceeding his market allotment for how much he could grow. The Supreme Court said that this was within the Feds power in order for the govt to regulate the price of wheat. They noted that, even though Filburn was a single mam who grew a relatively small amount of wheat in excess (something like 240 bushels), if everyone in the country did this, then the demand for wheat would plummet and anarchy would ensue( my words) just as if they let lottery tickets float across state lines 40 years earlier...

 

The most recent Supreme Court case about this upholds the Feds power. You probably heard of Gonzales v. Raich(2005). The Supremes basically said that since there is an illegal market for marijuana in other states, the possession and cultivation of it in California and under that state's laws still does not protect a person from Federal Prosecution....since, just like the evil lottery tickets, it is inevitable that the cannabis will find its way into those states that prohibit it(interstate commerce...)

 

Maybe we should prohibit provocative clothing on women since it is inevitable that it will be used by prostitutes to entice participants into that illegal market...which could traverse state lines making it an interstate commerce issue.

Edited by mmurphy169
Link to comment
Share on other sites

....well I'm not lawyer yet, nor a caregiver, I have only completed the first year of law school, but I can provide more information than this.

 

The Federal Government is supposed to only have powers that are enumerated to it explicitly in the Constitution, hence the wording of the 10th Amend. The Fed was given power to regulate interstate commerce, to make and enforce treaties, and to tax(and spend) towards those powers. Nowadays, most of what the Fed does is under the guise of the commerce clause, including the drug war. Remember, the Federal Government was never supposed to have a police power, that was to be left to the states and local municipalities.

 

One of the first cases to state that the Feds could regulate something based on the commerce clause was Champion v. Ames (1903)-referred to as the lottery case- in which the Supreme Court said that Congress could regulate the production of lottery tickets in one state since other states banned the production and sale of lottery tickets. They said that since lottery tickets are small and portable, it was inevitable that they would find their way from the legal market of one state to the illegal market of another state. Some interesting quotes from that cases cast the foreshadow of federal power expansion; " We should hesitate long before adjudging that an evil of such appalling character, carried on through interstate commerce, cannot be met and crushed by the only power competent to that end."; "It will be time enough to consider the constitutionality of such legislation when we must do so. The possible abuse of a power is not an argument against its existence."

 

From that case, the Feds continually expanded what they could regulate and control. FDR used the commerce clause to validate the constitutionality of much of his New Deal legislation. I won't get to much into the battle or the "change in time that saved nine", it just seems fishy that there were 5 Supreme court justices that would have declared most of the New Deal unconstitutional on the ground that the Fed never was supposed to have that kind of power. But one of them died and then the other four quickly resigned...

 

But this leads us to Wickard v. Filburn(1942), a case involving a farmer who was growing wheat he used to feed his livestock and family. The Feds prosecuted him because he was exceeding his market allotment for how much he could grow. The Supreme Court said that this was within the Feds power in order for the govt to regulate the price of wheat. They noted that, even though Filburn was a single mam who grew a relatively small amount of wheat in excess (something like 240 bushels), if everyone in the country did this, then the demand for wheat would plummet and anarchy would ensue( my words) just as if they let lottery tickets float across state lines 40 years earlier...

 

The most recent Supreme Court case about this upholds the Feds power. You probably heard of Gonzales v. Raich(2005). The Supremes basically said that since there is an illegal market for marijuana in other states, the possession and cultivation of it in California and under that state's laws still does not protect a person from Federal Prosecution....since, just like the evil lottery tickets, it is inevitable that the cannabis will find its way into those states that prohibit it(interstate commerce...)

 

Maybe we should prohibit provocative clothing on women since it is inevitable that it will be used by prostitutes to entice participants into that illegal market...which could traverse state lines making it an interstate commerce issue.

 

 

:goodjob::goodjob::goodjob:

 

Thanks for the wisdom Murph!

 

America needs everyday working class people to STAND UP AND RUN FOR PUBLIC OFFICE!

People who care more about and for America than any political party or agenda!

 

HONOR/INTEGRETY/CHARITY/HOPE AND FAITH!

:sword::sword::sword:

Mostly Honest folk who can not be bought!

 

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the first cases to state that the Feds could regulate something based on the commerce clause was Champion v. Ames (1903)-referred to as the lottery case- in which the Supreme Court said that Congress could regulate the production of lottery tickets in one state since other states banned the production and sale of lottery tickets.

 

And by the 1930's they had completely rewritten the darn Constitution.

 

Just try to imagine how it will be in 30 more years if the Court rules that Congress has power under the Commerce Clause to force Americans to buy private goods or services. What is the possible limit? The sky?

 

As to why they have not challenged Raich again it is because the ruling was pretty darn clear and it is not changing any time soon. The feds have their little federal law thingy and the State has their own State law thingy and they both get to play, although not necessarily with each other.

 

Only the Ogden Memo protects us now- possibly President Obamba's only great achievement (unless you count destroying the economy).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to why they have not challenged Raich again it is because the ruling was pretty darn clear and it is not changing any time soon. The feds have their little federal law thingy and the State has their own State law thingy and they both get to play, although not necessarily with each other.

 

I never asked why they didn't challenge it...in fact, I don't even know what you mean when you say "challenged". I'm still only one year in, but I didn't know you could challenge an opinion of the Supreme Court. I thought they way it worked was that stare decisis makes the opinion binding on lower courts and future Supreme Courts until the Supremes explicitly overturn their previous opinion, which will only happen if they grant a writ of certiorari for another case that involves the same points of law and decide the Court was previously wrong. I guess I must have been mistaken; or sleeping during con law...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never asked why they didn't challenge it...in fact, I don't even know what you mean when you say "challenged". I'm still only one year in, but I didn't know you could challenge an opinion of the Supreme Court. I thought they way it worked was that stare decisis makes the opinion binding on lower courts and future Supreme Courts until the Supremes explicitly overturn their previous opinion, which will only happen if they grant a writ of certiorari for another case that involves the same points of law and decide the Court was previously wrong. I guess I must have been mistaken; or sleeping during con law...

 

 

Yes right out of the textbook but in the real world you realize this is a different court already than the court that decided Raich and stare decisis is only what the court wants it to be. We already have Thomas- the most conservative justice perhaps on the court saying: "Respondent's local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not "Commerce ... among the several States." Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that "commerce" included the mere possession of a good or some personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana.

 

 

You effectively challenge an opinion of the supreme court by giving it another case with a slightly different fact pattern. Angel Raich participated in co-ops and I am pretty sure she gave inerviews and such before the DEA raid. What about the guy just growing his own in the basement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You effectively challenge an opinion of the supreme court by giving it another case with a slightly different fact pattern.

 

Thats exactly what I said. You can't challenge it, you just hope that the Supremes grant the writ for the case you present them. And since they choose which cases they will hear it is all up to them. If they don't want to hear a case involving medical cannabis, they won't. I thought, "in the real world" the legal profession has rules and procedures you have to follow or else you are ignored by the court. Which was the whole point of going to law school and learning them, not just googling questions of law and reciting your opinion on them. Or is that something I just got right out of the textbook as well? And yes I realize that Rehnquist retired in 2005 and the Roberts is the Chief Justice now. Do you realize it doesn't make any sense to bring that up...what point are you trying to make? One post you say the opinion is clear and its not gonna change anytime soon, and the next you make it a point to demonstrate that you know the court is different...are you now saying they will grant a writ for a case involving a individual grower???

 

Of course what the court defines as commerce now is vastly expanded from what it was it the past, there's no need to sift threw the dissenting opinion of Thomas to find a quote that says that. Thats why I went threw some cases chronically its expansion, not just saying 'the founders wouldn't agree with this'...I mean that doesn't help anyone understand how we got here. They never would have thought the Federal Government should be able to regulate and ban small pieces of paper like lottery tickets, practices of hotel owners, or acts of violence. Should I get into the Morrison case involving the argument over how the Federal Government can make laws against violence against women because that has an impact on interstate commerce...or what about the case where the court said the action of a local hotel of discriminating against blacks was within federal jurisdiction because it discourages people from traveling and spending money. Over the past 100 years the court has said that if the activity in question has a substantial impact on interstate commerce, they can regulate it and has not limited itself to simply economic activity.

 

I don't understand what you are getting at in this thread...I mean you should know what the arguments are that the Federal Government brings to court, you are an attorney right. They have said in the past that if the activity involves the use of items of commerce that cross state lines, and if you aggregate that activity and the resulting figures show substantial effects on interstate commerce, they can regulate it. So, in other words, if the growers in MI use items during cultivation that have crossed state lines; and if you add up the amount of money spent on these items by the MI growers and it proves to be a substantial amount (whatever they can reasonably claim is enough to have an large effect on the market of those products) then they can regulate it...or they could just do what they did in Raich and say the cannabis will inevitably find its way across state lines so they can regulate it.

 

I obviously don't agree with these arguments, I just know they are some the Federal Government brings to the table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share



×
×
  • Create New...