Drug Czar Won't Respond To Nevada Campaign Law Complaint

Associated Press ^ | Jan. 28, 2003

[Wolfie]

Drug Czar Won't Respond To Nevada Campaign Law Complaint

The national drug czar has declined to respond to complaints that the he broke Nevada law by not filing reports on money spent opposing November's marijuana ballot initiative.

The Marijuana Policy Project, which backed the defeated initiative to allow possession of up to 3 ounces of marijuana, said drug czar John Walters failed to submit his campaign finance report.

Nevada Secretary of State Dean Heller asked Walters for a response earlier this month.

But the Office of National Drug Control Policy said in a letter received Tuesday by Heller that Walters is immune from enforcement of Nevada's election laws.

The letter from office general counsel Edward Jurith said Walters was immune because he was a"federal official acting within the scope of duties, including speaking out about the dangers of illegal drugs."

Heller said he would review the response and may seek the opinion of state Attorney General Brian Sandoval.

Bruce Mirken of the Marijuana Policy Project said Walters' response indicates"he has moved from simply ignoring the law to actively defying it."

Mirken said past U.S. Supreme Court decisions found that the key test of immunity is whether state or local regulation"intrudes or interferes"with the federal government activities.

"The claim that he was just doing his job is obvious nonsense," Mirken said."He was explicitly campaigning against Question 9."

[JCEccles]

Fine, let's pick any other federal usurpation of power not specifically prohibited to the fedgov under the Bill of Rights.

National drug laws and policies are unconstitutional? Sorry, but that dog don't hunt (that doper don't toke?). It is well-settled law--well-settled my poor, misinformed friend.

[MrLeRoy]

The drug czar is well with his powers to speak out against state initiatives and laws

Is he well within his powers to flout state laws that require him to register when he thus speaks out?

[Roscoe]

Rosenthal is toast under that.

Looks that way.

[MrLeRoy]

National drug laws and policies are unconstitutional? Sorry, but that dog don't hunt (that doper don't toke?). It is well-settled law--well-settled

So is Roe v Wade. Do you believe that ruling is in accord with the plain meaning of the Constitution?

[philman_36]

The constitutionality of the CSA apparently wasn't before the court in Proyect v. United States. (see below)
Nor was it in United States v. Leshuk, nor was it Proyect v. United States.
They all seem to be considerations of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and in the cases of United States v. Leshuk 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 21 U.S.C. § 846 in United States v. Wacker.

I simply don't see how you can conclude that those cases show the constitutionality of the CSA when it was never before the court as an issue. Two of the cases were brought forward under different circumstances, namely trafficing and conspiracy.
The closest you can get IMO with Proyect v. United States is this...
This case involves a challenge to 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (note that it challenges a specific section of 21 USC and that the CSA begins at Section 801 of USC 21) which criminalizes the manufacture of marijuana, on the ground that Congress, in passing the statute, exceeded its power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 3. Like every other court to have considered the issue, we reject this argument.

Here is your "catch-all"...21 U.S.C. § 801
(5) Controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate cannot be differentiated from controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate. Thus, it is not feasible to distinguish, in terms of controls, between controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate and controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate.

[JCEccles]

SCOTUS is not about to strike down federal drug laws under a narrow interpretation of the commerce clause. Drug laws are plenty skinny enough to squeeze through.

[tacticalogic]

National drug laws and policies are unconstitutional? Sorry, but that dog don't hunt (that doper don't toke?). It is well-settled law--well-settled my poor, misinformed friend.

Which version of the Commerce Clause should we consider "well settled"? The 150 years worth before FDR, or the 65 years worth since?

[MrLeRoy]

Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 (1918)

Over interstate transportation, or its incidents, the regulatory power of Congress is ample, but the production of articles, intended for interstate commerce, is a matter of local regulation. 'When the commerce begins is determined, not by the character of the commodity, nor by the intention of the owner to transfer it to another state for sale, nor by his preparation of it for transportation, but by its actual delivery to a common carrier for transportation, or the actual commencement of its transfer to another state.' Mr. Justice Jackson in Re Greene (C. C.) 52 Fed. 113. This principle has been recognized often in this court. Coe v. Errol, 116 U.S. 517 , 6 Sup. Ct. 475; Bacon v. Illinois, 227 U.S. 504 , 33 Sup. Ct. 299, and cases cited. If it were otherwise, all manufacture intended for interstate shipment would be brought under federal control to the practical exclusion of the authority of the states, a result certainly not contemplated by the framers of the Constitution when they vested in Congress the authority to regulate commerce among the States. Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U.S. 1, 21 , 9 S. Sup. Ct. 6.

[JCEccles]

Whta is your profession?

I believe dirtboy is a geologist. What is your background and professional training?

[dirtboy]

National drug laws and policies are unconstitutional? Sorry, but that dog don't hunt (that doper don't toke?). It is well-settled law--well-settled my poor, misinformed friend.

Please explain to me how federal law prohibiting the cultivation of pot for personal use can possibly be constitutional - no commerce involved, and nothing crosses state lines. I do realize that if SCOTUS says something passes muster, then it can be enforced as law, but that does not make it right - because if SCOTUS decides that the 2nd Amendment does NOT recognized the right of individuals to bear arms, are YOU gonna accept it?

[JCEccles]

Hmmm. Headnote lawyering from a non-lawyer.

Not a particularly credible combination.

[dirtboy]

I believe dirtboy is a geologist.

I wish. I was gonna be one, but the oil bust of the early 1980s changed that career path. I'm now in database marketing - but please don't tell my parents.

[dirtboy]

SCOTUS is not about to strike down federal drug laws under a narrow interpretation of the commerce clause.

Yeah, because just about the entire federal behemoth is predicated on a broad, sweeping interpretation of the commerce clause. Are you really sure you want to applaud such just because it allows the implementation of your own pet agenda?

[JCEccles]

Please explain to me . . .

I'm not going to waste my time. I believe you are more than bright enough to understand; it is your pigheadedness that would doom the attempt to failure.

I would not be so foolish to challenge your understanding of the geophysics of plate tectonics. I would not be so foolish as to try.

[dirtboy]

I'm not going to waste my time. I believe you are more than bright enough to understand; it is your pigheadedness that would doom the attempt to failure.

In other words, you can't. I thought so, not one pro-drug war poster can.

[MrLeRoy]

Headnote lawyering

Wrong---that's not a headnote.

from a non-lawyer.

Law is much too important to be left to lawyers.

[dirtboy]

I would not be so foolish to challenge your understanding of the geophysics of plate tectonics.

Trillions of little green weasels deep in the Earth carry the plates around on their backs. Don't believe all that core/mantle/spreading center stuff you hear.

[tacticalogic]

SCOTUS is not about to strike down federal drug laws under a narrow interpretation of the commerce clause. Drug laws are plenty skinny enough to squeeze through.

Well darn it, I was hoping some good might come out of that. I don't see that what's growing in a flower pot on your patio is any "skinnier" than what might be living in a mudpuddle in your back yard.

[jodorowsky]

Slam dunk.

[tacticalogic]

I work on pc networks. Day-to-day I administer e-mail systems. On demand I'll do general network troubleshooting, mostly protocol decoding and analysis. I tend to look at things a little bit sideways, and I seem to inherit the problems no one else seems to be able to make any sense of.