Posted on 04/30/2004 1:17:44 PM PDT by Wolfie
Drug Czar's Nevada Expense Report Sought
Carson City -- A marijuana advocacy group has asked the state Supreme Court to order Secretary of State Dean Heller to require a federal official to provide expense information spent lobbying against a state pot initiative.
The Washington, D.C.,-based Marijuana Policy Project said Heller is not requiring U.S. Drug Czar John Walters to file expense reports on his anti-marijuana efforts because of an erroneous opinion from the attorney general's office.
The group sought campaign reporting from Walters in connection with a 2002 marijuana legalization effort in Nevada that failed at the ballot box.
In January 2003, an attorney for Walters said he is immune from Nevada election laws "as a federal official acting within the scope of duties, including speaking out about the dangers of illegal drugs."
Heller then sought an opinion from the attorney general, who essentially came to the same conclusion.
The marijuana group has filed a new initiative petition this year seeking voter approval to legalize possession of up to 1 ounce of the drug. The signature gathering process is now under way.
As a result, Walters visited Las Vegas in March to oppose the initiative. He called it "foolhardy."
On April 22, the marijuana group sought a writ compelling Heller to require Walters to follow Nevada election law requiring advocacy groups to report donations and expenditures.
Heller has not yet responded. There is no timeline on when the state court will act on the petition.
Rene Parker, chief deputy secretary of state, said Thursday the office is not changing its position as a result of the group seeking the writ.
"We're following the attorney general's advice and they are not changing at this point," she said.
What's worth knowing more about are the names of any elected officials and/or judges, sworn to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution, who sign off on this Soros-sponsored, piece of crap petition.
They should be impeached, tried, convicted, and shot for treason.
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
"Section 2. Oath of office.
Members of the legislature, and all officers, executive, judicial and ministerial, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe to the following oath:
I, ................, do solemly [solemnly] swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect and defend the constitution and government of the United States, and the constitution and government of the State of Nevada, against all enemies, whether domestic or foreign, and that I will bear true faith, allegiance and loyalty to the same, any ordinance, resolution or law of any state notwithstanding, and that I will well and faithfully perform all the duties of the office of ................, on which I am about to enter; (if an oath) so help me God; (if an affirmation) under the pains and penalties of perjury."
Nonsense. The petition was to change Nevada State law.
Where does the Constitution or Federal law require a State to make MJ illegal?
What's worth knowing more about are the names of any elected officials and/or judges, sworn to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution, who sign off on this Soros-sponsored, piece of crap petition.
They should be impeached, tried, convicted, and shot for treason.
I think you've gone off the deep end.
Ken H, how is it that these "medical marijuana" patients are being arrested in California? Answer: If a state law conflicts with federal law, the federal law prevails.
In this case, the Controlled Substances Act is the prevailing federal law. Any state law that conflicts with the CSA is unconstitutional, and the Nevada legislators and judges know this.
"I think you've gone off the deep end.
What, they shouldn't be shot? Fine, drawn and quartered then.
These patients are not being arrested now. Here is a thread you might have missed that explains why the Feds can't touch them--
Medical Pot Group Basks in Victory, Eyes New Harvest
"'We're going to go ahead and plant a garden,' Mike Corral said."
See robertpaulsen, he's going to plant a garden. There's nothing you can do about it. There's nothing the Feds can do about it for now. They'd likely go to jail if they tried, don't you think?
So they're not going to do it. Wouldn't be prudent, now would it?
"There's nothing the Feds can do about it for now."
Yep, that's why they call it a "preliminary injunction".
I'm trying to determine just how much of an anarchist hides within you under the guise of constitutional rights.
All that Nevada is proposing is removing Nevada penalties against MJ possession below a certain amount.
Let's assume it is not a violation of Nevada law to have a toilet that exceeds Federal regulations on flush capacity.
You can have as big a pot as you want and that's perfectly fine with Nevada.
Now, if the Feds are staking out your toilet in Nevada and they find you in violation of the EPA flush standard, they can still apply appropriate penalties.
Nevada does not have to have a law that penalizes Nevadans for possessing either toilets that are too big or small amounts of pot.
I can't decide if the EPA got their authority over toilets from the Commerce Clause or the General Welfare Clause.
That is legalization. You having a problem with that word? Legalization of ANY amount of marijuana for recreational use is contrary to federal law.
I am asking you for the second time, what are we to do with legislators who pass, and the judges who approve, legislation that is contrary to constitutional federal law?
Vote out the legislators and impeach the judges.
Oh, I'm sorry, you were talking about STATE officials.
Correct. It means that Nevada would have no penalties against possession. That's what legalization of possession means.
Legalization of ANY amount of marijuana for recreational use is contrary to federal law.
Are you saying that Nevada would be in violation of Federal law if they didn't have a law against MJ possession?
If you mean "in violation of constitutional Federal law", you challenge the law in Court or elect new legislators.
You're not seriously suggesting that legislators can be tried for treason if they pass an unconstitutional law? Are you?
If they do so knowingly and willingly, you bet.
We both are not constitutional scholars, yet we both know that this Nevada legislation goes against the Supremacy Clause. Do you deny it?
You're saying that if Nevada passed a law which removed all State sanctions against MJ possession, they are in violation of the US Constitution?
Of course I deny it. It is one of the sillier things I've read on the topic.
Federal law on MJ would still be in effect. The Feds could still bust those who possess MJ in Nevada to their heart's content.
However, Nevada does not have it make it against Nevada State law to possess MJ.
Correction:
However, Nevada does not have to make it against Nevada State law to possess MJ.
The simultaneous flushing of all the toilets in Nevada would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
How?
And am I to understand that you believe the federal government is empowered under the U.S. Constitution to influence state elections? If so, where is this power delegated?
Please explain.
The Federal Register, where new rules are published daily, hit an all-time high of 75,606 pages this past year (up from 49,795 in 1990).
In the pipeline are now 4,187 rules at various stages of completion.
Five agencies are responsible for more than half of this torrent:
Environmental Protection Agency and the Transportation, Treasury, Agriculture and Interior departments.
No. Are you suggesting that's what's happened here?
Let me ask you. Do you believe that a federal official acting within the scope of duties, including speaking out about the dangers of illegal drugs, should be harassed into providing his expense report to a pro-drug group?
I say harassed because exactly the same request was made last year concerning another visit, and was denied by the attorney general.
The Nevada proposal would not make MJ legal under Federal law. It would remove penalties under Nevada State law for possession under a certain amount.
That would violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, a document they've sworn to uphold.
If Nevada passed a law that removed State penalties for MJ possession, would it violate the US Constitution?
According to the article, "to legalize possession of up to 1 ounce."
Do you think you're being cute with the "removing penalties" language? Do you think this "wink wink, nidge nudge" word play means anything to anyone? Do you think people will say, "They're not making it legal. They're just removing all penalties".
Yes. Legalizing a drug by removing all penalties violates the Supremacy clause. The USSC can rule the law invalid.
The Nevada legislators and judges who sign off on this petition are knowingly violating their oath of office.
Yes. Legalizing a drug by removing all penalties violates the Supremacy clause.
Your position is that Nevada would be in violation of the Supremacy Clause if they removed State penalties against MJ possession. Correct?
Now now, calm down.
Just clarifying what we mean by "legalize" so that we'll be on the same page. You seem to be saying that a State must criminalize any activity that the Feds have criminalized.
As long as the CSA is in effect and deemed constitutional (a whole other subject), if Nevada passed a law that said MJ is legal and no Federal laws may apply, then your Supremacy Clause argument holds.
If Nevada passed a law saying that possession of MJ is legal under Nevada law and stops there, then your Supremacy Clause argument falls.
Ohio, for example, has decriminalized possession and made it a civil offense, contrary to Federal law.
Is Ohio in violation of the Supremacy Clause?
If a federal employee is spending federal money to influence elections in my state, I want to know about it. That's my opinion, and it's a statement, not a question to be answered.
While I am also no fan of George Soros or his winged minions, I am very much a fan of our Constitution, and specifically combating the seemingly relentless encroachment of Socialist centralized government on our sovereign states. Every step by the federal government into the domain of the several states is a step toward totalitarian tyranny.
Whatever Soros' paid stooges' motives may be is irrelevant to me and to this critical issue. The question is legitimate.
As for all your nonsense about shooting, drawing and quartering people for "treason" (your own definition opposes that established in our Constitution), that's just crazy talk.
If you wish to offer reasonable debate on this topic, great, but please spare me the breathless fluff, self-righteous indignation, innuendo, dissembling and attempts to change the subject. They do a great job of filling the thread with skip-worthy posts, but do nothing to incline me to agree with you on anything.
You might also want to cut back on the caffeine. I did, and I have yet to regret it.
Post #21: Are you saying that Nevada would be in violation of Federal law if they didn't have a law against MJ possession?
Post #25: You're saying that if Nevada passed a law which removed all State sanctions against MJ possession, they are in violation of the US Constitution?
Post #37: If Nevada passed a law that removed State penalties for MJ possession, would it violate the US Constitution?
Post #39: Your position is that Nevada would be in violation of the Supremacy Clause if they removed State penalties against MJ possession. Correct?
Calm down? Well, it was getting just a little old.
Ohio and some other states have "decriminalized" marijuana. It is still illegal but the penalties have been reduced, in most cases from a felony to a misdemeanor. As long as marijuana remains illegal, there is no problem at the federal level .... kinda.
There is the Solomon-Lautenberg amendment (23 USC 159) which calls for driver's license suspension for all illegal drug offenses under penalty of losing highway funds, but a state can opt out without penalty.
Nevada, on the other hand, is proposing outright legalization (of a small amount, but no nevermind). That law would be contrary to the CSA, and would therefore violate the Supremacy Clause. If and when that law is challenged in a federal court, it would be ruled unconstitutional.
Since the federal government cannot force a state to enforce federal laws, and since the state of Nevada would no longer have any drug law for marijuana, the federal government could/would take over this area of drug enforcement in the state, authorized by the Supremacy Clause.
This happened recently with the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative, legal under California state law, but in violation of federal law. The federal government triggered the case in 1998, seeking an injunction against them and five other marijuana distributors.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that marijuana may not be given to patients whose doctors prescribe cannabis, stating that federal laws prohibit the distribution or sales of marijuana, whether or not it is for medical purposes, and that these laws override the California law allowing the medicinal use of pot. The federal government is now responsible for enforcement.
Fair enough.
Since the federal government cannot force a state to enforce federal laws, and since the state of Nevada would no longer have any drug law for marijuana, the federal government could/would take over this area of drug enforcement in the state, authorized by the Supremacy Clause.
Agreed.
This happened recently with the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative, legal under California state law, but in violation of federal law. The federal government triggered the case in 1998, seeking an injunction against them and five other marijuana distributors.
Agreed.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that marijuana may not be given to patients whose doctors prescribe cannabis, stating that federal laws prohibit the distribution or sales of marijuana, whether or not it is for medical purposes, and that these laws override the California law allowing the medicinal use of pot. The federal government is now responsible for enforcement.
I don't think the USSC said that CA could not continue their program. They let both CA and the Federal government continue their respective policies.
IOW, the USSC did not rule that CA was in violation of the Supremacy Clause or any other part of the Constitution. Am I correct on that point?
I don't see why they would rule any differently if Nevada goes ahead with the proposal.
First, a George Soros-financed organization, the Marijuana Policy Project, is attempting yet again to subvert and undermine the constitutional Controlled Substances Act of 1970 by sponsoring and filing a petition seeking state voter approval to legalize possession of up to 1 ounce of marijuana.
Second, while U.S. Drug Czar John Walters was in Las Vegas in March, he opposed the initiative, calling it "foolhardy."
Now, I chose to comment on the first, you the second. Ah, big mistake on my part. I suppose I should have checked with you first to determine which of these two was more important. That my concerns about this issue are secondary to yours, huh?
You say to me, "Whatever Soros' paid stooges' motives may be is irrelevant to me and to this critical issue." Well, OK, fine. Then let me say to you, "The marijuana group seeking a writ compelling Heller to require Walters to follow Nevada election law is nothing more than harassment. It is baseless. It was tried in 2002 when Nevada tried to legalize 3oz., for a similar reason, and was denied. It is a non-starter. It is a non-issue. What Walters did was entirely constitutional as his role as a federal official acting within the scope of duties."
This is nothing. This is not news. This is not controversial, but you're acting as though this is the end of the republic. This is evidenced by the way you describe it: "A federal employee spending federal money to influence elections in my state." Oh, please. Cut the dramatics.
To me, what's controversial is the subversion of constitutional federal law. But I guess you can't be bothered with that. Fine by me.
Slow down on the caffeine? Don't need to. What I need are fewer people telling me what my priorities should be.
I believe that is correct. Proposition 215 is still on the books, although the DEA was enforcing federal law in shutting down the co-ops. Although they are allowed, the DEA does not have the manpower to arrest individual users.
Of course, now we have this Ninth Circuit brouhaha, so everything's the way it was prior to the case until the USSC rules.
I wonder why the DOJ did not make a Supremacy Clause argument and why the USSC did not take the opportunity to slap down CA's program on such a basis. They could have done so.
Of course, now we have this Ninth Circuit brouhaha, so everything's the way it was prior to the case until the USSC rules.
With one exception. The Feds are barred from acting against medical MJ growers.
AFAIK, the Feds have said nothing about appeal to the USSC and I have to wonder why. Maybe it's SOP to wait before announcing such a decision, but I would have expected some sort of comment.
I don't understand your opposition to public disclosure of taxpayer money spent to influence an election.
Your insinuation that this is somehow "dramatics", coupled with your apparent contempt for the idea of citizens knowing how money is spent in public elections are enough to satisfy me that you have nothing to offer on this topic of interest to me. Your original response to my original post was a non-sequitur, and it has gone downhill from there.
You appear obsessed with obfuscating my original question, which (spelling corrected), would read:
How much was spent, and who received the money?
I'm a citizen of Nevada, a taxpayer and a registered voter. I have a right to know. Any problems you have with that are your problems, not mine.
It is also bizarre that you interpret my interest in knowing about federal influence on elections in my state as somehow telling you what your priorities should be. Nowhere in this thread nor anywhere in these forums have I ever suggested what your priorities should be.
Don't take this the wrong way, but I really couldn't care less about your priorities. It's not all about you. In fact, it doesn't appear to have anything to do with you at all. You don't even live in Nevada.
So you can consider your attempts to thwart my curiosity about this topic to be absolute failures. In fact, I think I may look into that petition. Someone seems to have something to hide, based on the histrionics I'm seeing, and now I really would like to know what is going on in my state.
And I still recommend cutting down on the caffeine.
Are you sure? The one thing I do know for sure is that Walters doesn't have to tell you.
So good luck.
Oh, and by the way, I'm a U.S. citizen, a taxpayer, and a registered voter, and I don't want the federal government to spend $20,000 of my tax dollars to prepare a formal report for the MPP when one is not required.
If you are indeed a citizen of Nevada, then you know firsthand that the MPP tried this back in 2002 during another visit. It wasn't successful then, why do you think it would be successful today? This is harassment, pure and simple, and a waste of time.
Doesn't the fact that the proposed marijuana legalization petition is unconstitutional bother you?
The DOJ was waiting to see if the full Ninth Circuit would hear they case, since they could have reversed it. When the Ninth declined, the DOJ requested (on April 21st) the USSC to hear the case.
They are waiting to hear from the USSC.
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.