Cebu_4_2
31st December 2014, 05:50 AM
The Market Ticker - What Rule Of Law? WAKE UP!
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=229695
Ah, the sweet irony....
The attorneys general of Nebraska and Oklahoma have asked the Supreme Court to declare unconstitutional Colorado’s law legalizing marijuana. The lawsuit states that, “The Constitution and the federal anti-drug laws do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local pro-drug policies and licensed-distribution schemes throughout the country which conflict with federal laws.”
Many conservatives have criticized Nebraska and Oklahoma for being “fair-weather federalists” because their claims hinge, in part, on Gonzales v. Raich, a 2005 Supreme Court decision, upholding the broad reach of Congress’s power to regulate commerce.
Conservatives’ ire instead should be directed at the Obama administration’s decision to suspend enforcement of the federal law prohibiting marijuana—a decision so warping the rule of law that the complaining states’ reliance on Raich is justified and necessary.
Utter crap.
Colorado, for its part, has said it will defend it's statute. Good.
This torture of the Constitution goes back to Wickard .v. Filburn, a depression-era decision that was a clear violation of the Constitution itself. Let me remind everyone of the following:
"Where the meaning of the Constitution is clear and unambiguous, there can be no resort to construction to attribute to the founders a purpose of intent not manifest in its letter." -- Norris .v. Baltimore
and
“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” -- Norton .v. Shelby County
So the writer here purports to argue that in 1970 the passage of the Controlled Substances Act, which itself propounded a lie (classifying Marijuana as a "Schedule I" drug; a drug of both high abuse potential [debateable] and of no medical purpose [utterly false -- and known false at the time]) as binding on the States. The foundation of the CSA was the Congressional power to regulate commerce between the states. It claims that even "locally grown and/or manufactured drugs have a substantial impact on Interstate Commerce" as justification.
This is the same argument raised in Wickard; that a man growing a crop on his own land for his own personal consumption has a "substantial impact" on Interstate Commerce because he will not then need to buy other products.
Note that this argument has as its foundation the destruction of all boundary on Congressional action since quite literally your choice to drink from a clean spring on your own property will dilute your need to buy canned or bottled beverages that might be shipped in interstate commerce!
In other words you can be barred from consuming said spring water under criminal penalty because by drinking that water you would not buy something else.
Neighboring states such as Nebraska and Oklahoma have seen a significant influx of high-potency marijuana purchased in and directed toward Colorado markets, increasing those states’ law-enforcement costs.
Those neighboring states are within their rights to enforce their laws. The people are within their rights to decide that the laws of those states suck, and to move. That's the point of 50 states with strong legal codes, some of which may conflict. Those states and the Federal Government are within their right to prohibit interstate movement of these drugs.
But the fact that some people choose to break the law in Nebraska and Oklahoma has nothing to do with the law in Colorado. It's legal for a state to decide to allow alcohol sales on Sunday, for example, while another state may bar the same. The state that barred the sale and consumption on Sunday cannot force the other, neighboring state to also do so.
If the CSA is a valid federal statute, the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause (Article VI, paragraph 2) instructs that conflicting state laws cannot be allowed to stand. This is where Raich comes in.
Nope. The CSA is a valid federal state as it applies to interstate commerce. Congress clearly has the power to regulate that; so says The Constitution.
But a drug (or other item) manufactured, sold and consumed inside the boundaries of a State does not give rise to the Congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. That any number of people, whether numbered one or more, choose to violate a federal law regulating interstate commerce does not force a State to implement a law to assist the Federal Government (or a neighboring State) in enforcement of the power that ends, under the Constitution, at the State's political boundary.
This tension is intentional in the Constitution and separation of powers not only between departments but also between the States and Federal Government.
It is specifically intended to foster a "50 laboratories of political thought" process and frustrate idiotic statutes that are Constitutionally infirm.
There is no federalism defense to Colorado’s law, unless one believes that Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce doesn’t include the power to regulate the buying and selling of marijuana, a commercial market that involves interstate transportation, lures sellers and consumers from other states, and now generates more than $7 million in tax revenue for Colorado every month.
Of course Congress has no power to do what it claimed! That's the entire point of Federalism; Congressional power ends at the State Boundary, provided that commerce remains inside that political boundary.
That some people choose to violate the law does not give rise to the authority to reach inside that boundary. It does give power to regulate via reasonable means at the boundary. Further, that people choose to come to Colorado, either temporarily or permanently, to enjoy what the State allows is also part of the intended system of government the founders established!
How else do you explain blue laws varying not only from state to state but county-to-county! People choose to cross those political boundaries all the time for the explicit purpose of imbibing an intoxicant.
Witness Florida, which has an agricultural checkpoint in both directions. All commercial traffic must go through it and it is manned and operating even during hours where the usual weigh stations are not. This is expressly legal even if a pain in the ass. Likewise, if the states bordering Colorado wish to implement something similar on their roads they can.
Congress correctly perceived that when it sought to outlaw alcohol production and consumption it had to pass an Amendment to the Constitution and not a "law", because it sought not to regulate interstate commerce but all commerce throughout all 50 states, even that contained within a single instance of said state. It thus required the explicit consent of the State Legislatures.
The same applies here. The CSA by the Constitution is only applicable by a black-letter reading of said Constitution to that which moves in interstate commerce.
The States are free to prohibit or permit the production, sale and consumption of drugs as they wish within their States.
Congress may regulate the passage of said substances between the states, but not wholly-contained inside them.
If you honor actual judicial precedent then Wickard .v. Filburn is void, as it is preceded by Norton .v. Shelby County, and all of the above tie back to the fundamental Constitutional precept that a law (or ruling!) repugnant to the Constitution is void and of no effect.
That thousands of people have been incarcerated and their property confiscated under a void law doesn't justify the void law.
It simply makes everyone involved in doing so kidnappers and, in fact, felons -- a point that we, as citizens should take to heart and both put a stop to on a forward basis and seek restitution for those harmed by same.
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=229695
Ah, the sweet irony....
The attorneys general of Nebraska and Oklahoma have asked the Supreme Court to declare unconstitutional Colorado’s law legalizing marijuana. The lawsuit states that, “The Constitution and the federal anti-drug laws do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local pro-drug policies and licensed-distribution schemes throughout the country which conflict with federal laws.”
Many conservatives have criticized Nebraska and Oklahoma for being “fair-weather federalists” because their claims hinge, in part, on Gonzales v. Raich, a 2005 Supreme Court decision, upholding the broad reach of Congress’s power to regulate commerce.
Conservatives’ ire instead should be directed at the Obama administration’s decision to suspend enforcement of the federal law prohibiting marijuana—a decision so warping the rule of law that the complaining states’ reliance on Raich is justified and necessary.
Utter crap.
Colorado, for its part, has said it will defend it's statute. Good.
This torture of the Constitution goes back to Wickard .v. Filburn, a depression-era decision that was a clear violation of the Constitution itself. Let me remind everyone of the following:
"Where the meaning of the Constitution is clear and unambiguous, there can be no resort to construction to attribute to the founders a purpose of intent not manifest in its letter." -- Norris .v. Baltimore
and
“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” -- Norton .v. Shelby County
So the writer here purports to argue that in 1970 the passage of the Controlled Substances Act, which itself propounded a lie (classifying Marijuana as a "Schedule I" drug; a drug of both high abuse potential [debateable] and of no medical purpose [utterly false -- and known false at the time]) as binding on the States. The foundation of the CSA was the Congressional power to regulate commerce between the states. It claims that even "locally grown and/or manufactured drugs have a substantial impact on Interstate Commerce" as justification.
This is the same argument raised in Wickard; that a man growing a crop on his own land for his own personal consumption has a "substantial impact" on Interstate Commerce because he will not then need to buy other products.
Note that this argument has as its foundation the destruction of all boundary on Congressional action since quite literally your choice to drink from a clean spring on your own property will dilute your need to buy canned or bottled beverages that might be shipped in interstate commerce!
In other words you can be barred from consuming said spring water under criminal penalty because by drinking that water you would not buy something else.
Neighboring states such as Nebraska and Oklahoma have seen a significant influx of high-potency marijuana purchased in and directed toward Colorado markets, increasing those states’ law-enforcement costs.
Those neighboring states are within their rights to enforce their laws. The people are within their rights to decide that the laws of those states suck, and to move. That's the point of 50 states with strong legal codes, some of which may conflict. Those states and the Federal Government are within their right to prohibit interstate movement of these drugs.
But the fact that some people choose to break the law in Nebraska and Oklahoma has nothing to do with the law in Colorado. It's legal for a state to decide to allow alcohol sales on Sunday, for example, while another state may bar the same. The state that barred the sale and consumption on Sunday cannot force the other, neighboring state to also do so.
If the CSA is a valid federal statute, the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause (Article VI, paragraph 2) instructs that conflicting state laws cannot be allowed to stand. This is where Raich comes in.
Nope. The CSA is a valid federal state as it applies to interstate commerce. Congress clearly has the power to regulate that; so says The Constitution.
But a drug (or other item) manufactured, sold and consumed inside the boundaries of a State does not give rise to the Congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. That any number of people, whether numbered one or more, choose to violate a federal law regulating interstate commerce does not force a State to implement a law to assist the Federal Government (or a neighboring State) in enforcement of the power that ends, under the Constitution, at the State's political boundary.
This tension is intentional in the Constitution and separation of powers not only between departments but also between the States and Federal Government.
It is specifically intended to foster a "50 laboratories of political thought" process and frustrate idiotic statutes that are Constitutionally infirm.
There is no federalism defense to Colorado’s law, unless one believes that Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce doesn’t include the power to regulate the buying and selling of marijuana, a commercial market that involves interstate transportation, lures sellers and consumers from other states, and now generates more than $7 million in tax revenue for Colorado every month.
Of course Congress has no power to do what it claimed! That's the entire point of Federalism; Congressional power ends at the State Boundary, provided that commerce remains inside that political boundary.
That some people choose to violate the law does not give rise to the authority to reach inside that boundary. It does give power to regulate via reasonable means at the boundary. Further, that people choose to come to Colorado, either temporarily or permanently, to enjoy what the State allows is also part of the intended system of government the founders established!
How else do you explain blue laws varying not only from state to state but county-to-county! People choose to cross those political boundaries all the time for the explicit purpose of imbibing an intoxicant.
Witness Florida, which has an agricultural checkpoint in both directions. All commercial traffic must go through it and it is manned and operating even during hours where the usual weigh stations are not. This is expressly legal even if a pain in the ass. Likewise, if the states bordering Colorado wish to implement something similar on their roads they can.
Congress correctly perceived that when it sought to outlaw alcohol production and consumption it had to pass an Amendment to the Constitution and not a "law", because it sought not to regulate interstate commerce but all commerce throughout all 50 states, even that contained within a single instance of said state. It thus required the explicit consent of the State Legislatures.
The same applies here. The CSA by the Constitution is only applicable by a black-letter reading of said Constitution to that which moves in interstate commerce.
The States are free to prohibit or permit the production, sale and consumption of drugs as they wish within their States.
Congress may regulate the passage of said substances between the states, but not wholly-contained inside them.
If you honor actual judicial precedent then Wickard .v. Filburn is void, as it is preceded by Norton .v. Shelby County, and all of the above tie back to the fundamental Constitutional precept that a law (or ruling!) repugnant to the Constitution is void and of no effect.
That thousands of people have been incarcerated and their property confiscated under a void law doesn't justify the void law.
It simply makes everyone involved in doing so kidnappers and, in fact, felons -- a point that we, as citizens should take to heart and both put a stop to on a forward basis and seek restitution for those harmed by same.