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?
If you'll re-read my first post, I never said they couldn't lay and collect taxes. Simply re-read what I wrote rather than me re-typing it.
I won't re-type the paragraph about "owning our own bodies" either, nor will I re-type the cogent argument concerning where our indivdual, inherent rights are derived from.
Congress has abused the Commerce Clause since the early 1800's, including James Madison, who wrote the damn thing!
Furthermore, I don't need 51%. We live in a Free Republic, not a Democracy, the primary difference being in our Free Republic you do *not* get to vote to take away individual, inherent rights.
I've read the Supremacy Clause, and I don't believe it negates the rest of the Constitution, as you seem to imply.
And Federal Law doesn't trump state law every time. Check out all of the medical marijuana laws in several states. Check out the legalization ballot in Nevada and Alaska, and the recent laws passed in Colorado. All of those states are ready and willing to trump any federal laws. The ball's in the fed's court. And they don't seem to be ready and willing to fight this fight.
This shows precedent that state laws trump federal laws. Unless it needs to be like this for a certain number of years. How about 10 ? 20 ? 50 ? How soon until one considers it to have "always been like this" ?
Geez Louise. The old 1803 case brought up again. I will repeat the assertion that the Supreme Court isn't the final arbiter of what is and isn't Constitutional, and furthermore, currently, and in most times, juries are far more reliable in determining what is, and isn't Constitutional. That is when they're allowed to hear about the Constitution.
The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 is the culmination of several unconstitutional acts before it that were only made possible by the ever-changing propoganda towards marijuana. Why was it ever changing ? Because folks would have to be complete idiots to believe it turned you into an ax murderer, communist, or rapist. But Anslinger sure tried pretty hard to convince us of the evils, the only one sticking thus far being the "gateway theory", which could only be convincing to folks concerned with irresponsible teenagers, who shouldn't be using these substances in the first place. But it's nice for them to have inaminate objects to project blame to, since at this point in history, teaching kids individual responsibility isn't that high on the list. If individual responsiblity were important, politicians wouldn't be able to use the "for the children" defense, and maybe they'd then focus on their own "for the children" offenses.
This issue is no different than the gun rights issues. I understand Democrats have a vision of utopia where if guns were illegal, all would be well. It's a nice vision in some theories, but that vision translated into legislation (including requiring a CCW) is unconstitutional, even with the absence of the redundant 2nd amendment. I also understand that some Republicans (who forget what a Republic is) have a vision of utopia where if marijuana was illegal, all would be well. Again, these personal visions are ok to have, but they are in no way Constitutional.
Simply look at the genesis of the gun laws and the drug laws. That's about as shady of a time in our history that we've had. A huge skeleton in our historical closet that we've never came to terms with at a national level. The changes will come from the local level on up to the federal level, regardless of what you or I have to say about it. The quickest way towards national "on paper" legalization would be for the feds to step up the prosecution attempts on medical users in the several states. That's all the public needs to see, i.e., the feds performing no-knock searches, taking away ill individuals from their families, friends, and good-paying jobs, to be incarcerated and raped, all because they threw a seed in some dirt, or even worse, made a brownie.
If these substances were that big of an issue to society, then all members of all 3 branches would be tested regularly, not to mention the judges, lawyers, and police officers across this country who get busted for usage all the while contributing towards their prohibition.