Yeah, but we aren’t a nation, we are a United States. The constitution doesn’t give a word or even a hint that the federal government should regulate plants or the uses of them with a state.
This clearly under the 10th amendment leaves it to the states.
If Sessions, for example, starts raiding Colorado marijuana shops, he will not be in the right. He will be erasing states and reducing them to mere administrative districts of the national government. They will only be able to pass laws that fully harmonize with fedgov, so what’s the point of having a state? Fun for people who want to stop pot. But it will suck if you care about private property, local control of elections, gun ownership, fracking and drilling, healthcare laws, and CCW rights, etc. Anyone remember the states that refused to do Obamacare? I don’t want a fedgov so strong it can wipe out anything a state does.
We might not always be in charge, strengthening fedgov is always the wrong plan.
We philosophically differ. You are technically right about United States versus a sovereign federal nation but the states ceded authority for certain functions in the Constitution to a Federal Government. I believe that a national policy of drug control at least in some manner is for the overall benefit of all states. There are more than one instance of “health and general welfare.”
But in the end, you and I differ I guess. I’ll vote one way and you can vote another.
Lincoln made the states the bitch of the Feds. States rights died the day the Army of Northern Virginia surrendered.
Absolutely, Dead On right.
I disagree Sessions would be wrong to enforce the law. The responsibility to either change or negate the laws as written do not fall to the executive branch. They are legislative and judicial, respectively.
I do not disagree that the laws are not constitutionally founded. But the AG should not decide to ignore the laws as written.
Hopefully Colorado jurors would make this an expensive exercise in futility.