Posted on 11/18/2021 9:06:41 AM PST by RandFan
@robbysoave
Rand Paul is begging Democrats to join him in passing marijuana banking legalization before GOP retakes control: “If the Republicans get back in charge, which I think we will, the bills are never going to happen because our leadership doesn’t like them.”
(Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ...
They still believe in the War on Drugs!
(Can't see full WaPo article as it's paywalled)
Bipartisanship at last.
The failed “War on Drugs” is simply more government interference into our private lives which is what Rand and true Patriots are against.
The sort that fails, though.
Only the bad stuff gets through.
No doubt if they add a $100 billion spending package to the bill the Dems might pass it.
Actually, the bill probably includes taxes or fees anyway which I would be against....
However, sometimes you have to take what you can get.
Federal law should be enforced. It is illegal to sell pot, the federal government should sees the bank accounts of pot dealers and organizations. Use that ill-gained money to pay down the debt.
Perhaps they should make all drugs legal (no prescription required). Allow people to self medicate and Darwin will take care of the problem. /s
What about the 10th Amendment to the Constitution ?
Weed is legal in many states.
The problem is the banking system is federalized and therefore legit business in those states are denied banking.
That is also unconstitutional in my view!
"10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]." —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Regarding so-called federal banking powers, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention had considered giving intrastate banking powers to Congress, but ended up deciding against it.
The reason imo that the feds have always had their big noses into intrastate banking is because traitor Alexander Hamilton, the first Treasury Secretary, cried on the shoulder of his former army buddy, President George Washington, to sign the bill that established the national bank —"do it for me George." Misguided Washington caved and signed the bill.
Although President Madison agreed that the feds don't have specific power to regulate intrastate banking, he later reluctantly signed another banking bill under "Necessary and Proper Clause" after exhausting other ways to try to stabilize weak, post-war economy. Correction welcome.
Regarding marijuana, but really agriculture, neither have the states given the feds the specific power to regulate intrastate agriculture.
In fact, agriculture is one of the first examples that Justice Joseph Story volunteered as an example of a commerce-related power that is actually not to be regarded as being in the scope of Congress's Commerce Clause powers.
"The question comes to this, whether a power, exclusively for the regulation of commerce, is a power for the regulation of manufactures? The statement of such a question would seem to involve its own answer. Can a power, granted for one purpose, be transferred to another? If it can, where is the limitation in the constitution? Are not commerce and manufactures as distinct, as commerce and agriculture? If they are, how can a power to regulate one arise from a power to regulate the other? It is true, that commerce and manufactures are, or may be, intimately connected with each other. A regulation of one may injuriously or beneficially affect the other. But that is not the point in controversy. It is, whether congress has a right to regulate that, which is not committed to it, under a power, which is committed to it, simply because there is, or may be an intimate connexion between the powers. If this were admitted, the enumeration of the powers of congress would be wholly unnecessary and nugatory. Agriculture, colonies, capital, machinery, the wages of labour, the profits of stock, the rents of land, the punctual performance of contracts, and the diffusion of knowledge would all be within the scope of the power; for all of them bear an intimate relation to commerce. The result would be, that the powers of congress would embrace the widest extent of legislative functions, to the utter demolition of all constitutional boundaries between the state and national governments [emphases added]." —Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 2:§§ 1073--91
Sadly, especially after the unthinking ratification of the 17th Amendment, it seems that Congress has always been interpreting its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers using some form of the following adage.
"It is easier to beg for and receive forgiveness than it is to ask for and receive permission." —Traces back to England.
Insights welcome.
The ultimate remedy for unconstitutionally big, alleged election-stealing, Democratic Party-pirated federal and state governments oppressing everybody under their boots...
Consider that all the states can effectively “secede” from the unconstitutionally big federal government by doing the following.
Patriots need to primary federal and state elected officials who don't send voters email ASAP that clearly promises to do the following.
Federal and state lawmakers need to promise in their emails to introduce resolutions no later than 100 days after start of new legislative sessions that proposes an amendment to the Constitution to the states, the amendment limited to repealing the 16th and ill-conceived 17th Amendments.
Again, insights welcome.
The “War On Drugs’’ is a money making industry for the law enforcement establishment, the prison system and what I call the ‘’therapy and recovery’’ industry.
“the federal government should sees the bank accounts of pot dealers and organizations”
Oh sure, that’s a winning political strategy in this day and age.
At least the dollar would actually be backed by something and have some inherent value.
>>They still believe in the War on Drugs!<<
So ironic these legislators run on down to the local pub to throw back a couple of scotch and sodas after a hard day legislating against weed. lol
It’s time to remove the profits from drug cartels and stop throwing people in jail for smoking pot. Crazy. How bout we save room for the rapidly growing numbers of violent offenders across this nation.
I just don’t see any upside to legalizing drugs. I see too many people who have ruined their lives with pot and worse.I am sure there are better approaches than legalizing it or jailing everyone.
A growth industry? Jobs, business etc. It’s already legal in half the US they just can’t get banking and operate mostly in cash
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.