Sure they can lay and collect taxes. If they'd like, they can even devise a tax scheme where you're required to have a tax stamp. But the burden is upon them to print such tax stamps. If this is not the case, then the government can require tax stamps to breathe or have children, and simply not print any tax stamps. Great, creative plan, and no one will notice their actually making it illegal. Just simply taxing it, since they're only allowed to tax. Again, NO ONE will notice. That's the key part.
Some folks find marijuana to be of medicinal benefit. They need to possess it in order to consume it. I'm doubting you're sincerity in this particular assertion, but whatever.
"Violating what part?" Again, you fail to understand the difference between rights and privileges. It's not, the government gets to do whatever it wants, EXCEPT what it is prohibited to do in the Constitution. It's the exact opposite, meaning the government ONLY gets the privileges We the People have provided them. The burden is on *you* to show where in the Constitution the federal government has been provided the privilege to legislate what we can, and can't put into our bodies. I'm not disputing they assume this power, I'm stating flat out that this privilege is *not* granted to them in the Constitution.
Any state official who does not *order* the state police to defend the citizens of that state, even if that means battling to the death with the feds, should immediately be removed from office.
I'm not suggesting Civil War. I'm suggesting the federal government learns its proper place, even if that requires bloodshed on their part.
And you also seem to be under the faulty impression that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter on what is, and isn't Constitutional. That's something else you won't find in the Constitution, along with the lack of the privilege of our federal government telling us what we can, and can't put in our bodies.
If you need help in forming a proper perspective, think "Free Republic", then "Rigid Principles", because at one time, Republicans did in fact believe in a "Free Republic", and having "Rigid Principles", rather than meeting the Democrats half-way with their socialist agenda.
My vision, which so happens to be aligned with the Constitution, gets the government out of our lives to the point that it would take generations for the Democrats to ever have the ability to inflict their socialist will on us again. I'm sure you know this, but marijuana was made illegal under the same premise as making machine guns illegal.
Say hello to Matsuidon when you get there.
Fine. Then don't say they can't.
"Some folks find marijuana to be of medicinal benefit. They need to possess it in order to consume it. I'm doubting you're sincerity in this particular assertion, but whatever."
Words mean things. You went on and on about "owning your own body" to the point of rambling. I corrected you in the hope that you would get back on topic, which was the government regulating the possession and sales of certain recreational drugs.
"I'm not disputing they assume this power, I'm stating flat out that this privilege is *not* granted to them in the Constitution."
It's a power, not a privilege. And Congress has used to power of the Commerce Clause to regulate (in this case, prohibit) the interstate commerce of some drugs. Congress has used this power to prohibit commerce since the early 1800's. James Madison, who wrote the damn thing, had no problem using it for this purpose.
So don't tell me they don't have the power. They do. You just don't like how they're using that power. Get 51% to agree with you and the drug laws will disappear.
"Any state official who does not *order* the state police to defend the citizens of that state"
Need I remind you that the state official took an oath of office? An oath that says he will "preserve, protect, and defend the U.S. Constitution"? Federal law trumps state law. Every time.
"I'm suggesting the federal government learns its proper place"
And I've already suggested that you become familiar with Article VI, Section 2 (Supremacy Clause) which you have obviously not done.
"And you also seem to be under the faulty impression that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter on what is, and isn't Constitutional."
Faulty? Geez Louise. Get educated.
In the 1803 landmark case Marbury v Madison, the U.S. Supreme Court asserted its power to review acts of Congress and invalidate those that conflict with the Constitution.
"I'm sure you know this, but marijuana was made illegal under the same premise as making machine guns illegal"
In 1937, yeah. But our current laws were passed under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. It's a waste of my time to be arguing old laws. What's next, slavery?