Replies

It will be interesting to see what their Constitutional justification is. A strict reading of the Constitution would not only show that the federales have no authority to rule on marijuana, but that they have no authority over any drugs whether pharmaceutical or recreational. That's one of the powers which "are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people".

It will be interesting to see what their Constitutional justification is.

The all-powerful, all-encomposing Commerce Clause.

Kinda like Santa Claus, only much more unconstitutional.

If you are standing quietly in a locked room, you are affecting interstate commerce, according to those who would abrogate the BoR.

""It will be interesting to see what their Constitutional justification is. A strict reading of the Constitution would not only show that the federales have no authority to rule on marijuana, but that they have no authority over any drugs whether pharmaceutical or recreational. That's one of the powers which "are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people".""

The government feels it no longer needs justify it's laws Constitutionally. They just need to interpret the Constitution to fit the laws the want to create.

A strict reading of the Constitution would not only show that the federales have no authority to rule on marijuana, but that they have no authority over any drugs whether pharmaceutical or recreational.

They likely based it on a reasonable reading of the commerce clause. The commerce clause is subject to being abused, and in my opinion often has been abused in the past to extend federal power over matters clearly beyond any reasonable interpretation of its reach.

It is also my opinion, and apparently an opinion shared by a majority of the court, that it is not an overbroad interpretation of the commerce clause to read it as giving Congress the power to regulate or prohibit the sale or use of marijuana.

Now please note this well: This decision does NOT mean the pro-pot voices have lost the war. It merely means they will have to continue the fight in CONGRESS, and not in the federal courts.

Alternatively, they could try to amend the commerce clause to disempower Congress from legislating in such cases.

The pot heads still have all sorts of options. You should not look to the federal courts for salvation to practice their favorite vice. Debate and persuade, elect and remove. If the facts really are on the pot heads' side, they should win in a walk whether via legislation or by amendment.

That is always the best way in a Republic. That is how it is designed to operate.

What part of the constitution says that it's illegal for the federal governement to make a law regarding the legality of Marijuana?

I'm at the beach on vacation and am feeling too lazy to do my own research.

thanks!

It will be interesting to see what their Constitutional justification is. A strict reading of the Constitution would not only show that the federales have no authority to rule on marijuana, but that they have no authority over any drugs whether pharmaceutical or recreational.

A strict reading of the Constitution would require the repeal of about 85% of what the federal government now does. That makes for an interesting thought experiment, but I don't think the current court is going to try to roll back pretty much everything since 1932.

Putting aside that pipedream, we're left with ... what? Ten pro-marijuana states reasserting the nullification doctrine.