Us Supreme Court Strikes Down Part Of Doma

[OG Fire Beaster]

Does this have any impact on the Federal government recognizing states that legalize marijuana for whatever reasons? In the ruling the majority stated "that by not federally recognizing the marriages of gay couples, the government was creating a 2nd tier of citizens and infringing on their rights"(approximately).  Does not recognizing the choice made in states that legalize, for recreational or medical, not do the same? Is it possible that parts of the CSA could be struck down for a similar reason?

[Celliach]

It very well could.  Do you have a case to bring before the SC?

[OG Fire Beaster]

No I don't. I imagine someone will though. Could be an effective argument in fed court. Seems like a ruling that could have substantial impact.

Edited June 26, 2013 by OG Fire Beaster

[Celliach]

The problem is the financial and emotional turmoil that plays against anyone dragging any court case through the legal system all the way to the Supreme Court.....and that's counting on them deciding to hear the case.

[OG Fire Beaster]

I was thinking more along the lines of states that have legalized and are willing to put up money to keep it. It would probably have to be something bigger than an individual. Like a State or large organization doing it. Thought it was an interesting decision.

[Celliach]

It was an individual that brought this case over DOMA to the SC.  She didn't feel it was right that she had to pay around $350k in inheritance taxes that she wouldn't have had to pay if she and her deceased partner had been legally married.  States don't bring these cases to the SC, citizens do.  Most of the time the citizen has already been to the state for help and was ruled against. That's usually how they ended up in in the Supreme Court.

[+Malamute]

It's been found constitutional to enforce drug laws. 

[Chauncy Gardner]

An argument against the government's self appointed role of protecting you from yourself:

 

http://www.paulhager.org/libertarian/drug_con.html

Edited June 27, 2013 by Chauncy Gardner

[+Malamute]

Just thought this was good:

 

 

[OG Fire Beaster]

Mal

 

So was slavery at one point. Laws and interpretations of the Constitution change. I think more will come of this.

 

Cel

 

States bring suit against the federal government all the time. Not sure what your talking about.

 

 

I think this ruling could be useful. Hopefully someone tries to use it to our benefit.

[greenbuddha]

Mal

 

So was slavery at one point. Laws and interpretations of the Constitution change. I think more will come of this.

 

Cel

 

States bring suit against the federal government all the time. Not sure what your talking about.

 

 

I think this ruling could be useful. Hopefully someone tries to use it to our benefit.

 

OG, I believe you are right.

 

When the federal government tries hitting 'legal cannabis' states with economic sanctions that take away funding for not obeying 'federal law' you will see the shite hit the fan... you won't need an 'individual case' to start it either.

[Celliach]

Mal

 

So was slavery at one point. Laws and interpretations of the Constitution change. I think more will come of this.

 

Cel

 

States bring suit against the federal government all the time. Not sure what your talking about.

 

 

I think this ruling could be useful. Hopefully someone tries to use it to our benefit.

 

I was talking about this case, and other cases of this type i.e. pertaining to personal liberty.  Maybe you should look at a history of cases brought to the SC.

[Celliach]

OG, I believe you are right.

 

When the federal government tries hitting 'legal cannabis' states with economic sanctions that take away funding for not obeying 'federal law' you will see the shite hit the fan... you won't need an 'individual case' to start it either.

 

The shite didn't hit the fan when Reagan did the same thing over the drinking age forcing states to raise the legal age to 21 or forfeit federal highway funding.

[greenbuddha]

The shite didn't hit the fan when Reagan did the same thing over the drinking age forcing states to raise the legal age to 21 or forfeit federal highway funding.

 

 

I think the states will push back, since it involves 'a drug war' mentally by the federal gov.

 

Also, Reagan's attack on 'drinking age' did not 'reverse' the total legalization of alcohol, a major difference in the two situations, and not really comparable in my opinion.

 

But just as with the doubt that many had that Colorado and Washington state would legalize cannabis, we'll just have to wait and see.

[OG Fire Beaster]

I think the difference in the drinking age is that it did not create a second class of citizen as did the marriage issue. It effected all people equally. In relation to marijuana, the Fed Gov could be creating a second class of citizen based on what medicine they choose to take. I believe a State may sue the Fed if a federal law infringes on a state program or the rights of it's citizens.

[+Malamute]

Using marijuana  is not a right.

 

;-)

 

 We have to change the laws.

[OG Fire Beaster]

Yes we do need to change the laws. I believe some states have made using marijuana a "right".

[+Malamute]

They made it a privilege I do believe.

 

I think 2 states may have done state constitutional amendments to allow a minority group to use in limited circumstances.

 

 But not a right.

[OG Fire Beaster]

Well it should be! lol.

[+Malamute]

That I do not disagree with at all!

[greenbuddha]

They made it a privilege I do believe.

 

I think 2 states may have done state constitutional amendments to allow a minority group to use in limited circumstances.

 

 But not a right.

 

Mal, a very well informed point.

 

But we do have the 'right' to the Pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness, and I believe the 'use' of cannabis easily falls within that framework... and we have to use our 'rights' to insure our personal freedoms in that 'pursuit, cannabis use being only one of them.

[+Malamute]

I agree philosophically unquestionably.

 

 But your quote is not from the Constitution it is from the Declaration of independence.

 

 I would agree there are probably 3 items within the Constitution that should forbid the government from making people not be allowed to use cannabis' but unfortunately the Supremes have ruled otherwise.

[OG Fire Beaster]

Part of the issue with gay marriage was that marriage is not a "right". They still ruled that they can not prevent gay marriage because it interfered with their quality of life. I think it is applicable to marijuana, recreational and medicinal.

 

EDIT:

 

"5-4: DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment." Source - scotusblog.com.

Edited June 27, 2013 by OG Fire Beaster

[greenbuddha]

I agree philosophically unquestionably.

 

 But your quote is not from the Constitution it is from the Declaration of independence.

 

 I would agree there are probably 3 items within the Constitution that should forbid the government from making people not be allowed to use cannabis' but unfortunately the Supremes have ruled otherwise.

 

Yes, of course you're right,  Mal.

 

But the Constitution is based upon the idea of basic human 'rights' that the 'Declaration' defined.

 

The 'Constitution' is the document that gives these basic human rights their 'legality' to be claimed and, hopefully, guaranteed.

 

And, again, I believe the use of cannabis is one of those 'basic human rights' guaranteed by the Constitution.

 

And of course we all know that the actual Constitution was written on hemp paper (and probably the Declaration of Independence as well).

 

Now I'll get off my soap box.