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.
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.