I'm gonna have to side with Lex on this one. There is no Constitutional bar to the states enacting laws prohibiting drugs. Such laws are stupid, counterproductive, and anathema to the ideals of personal liberty, but are not unconstitutional.
Federal laws prohibiting drugs are a different kettle of fish, and are plainly unconstitutional... even if the bastards on the Supreme Court refuse to recognize it.
I would also argue, since Lex brought up speeding (which is not, after all, a federal crime), that attempts by the Feds to circumvent Constitutional restrictions on their authority through backdoor means such as mandating state legislation by threatening to withhold funds constititute de facto federal overstepping and are themselves unconstitutional.
Except insofar as they constitute international or interstate commerce. Which is why the recent medical mj overstepped Constitutional bounds.
I would also argue, since Lex brought up speeding (which is not, after all, a federal crime), that attempts by the Feds to circumvent Constitutional restrictions on their authority through backdoor means such as mandating state legislation by threatening to withhold funds constitute de facto federal overstepping and are themselves unconstitutional.
Of course, many of those funds are provided unconstitutionally in the first place, via an overreaching of the "general welfare" clause. Why is the Federal Govt. providing funds for highways? Well, the initial justification by Eisenhower's administration was to provide troops with a means of rapid transcontinental transport (i.e. to provide for common defense). Now, it is just self-perpetuating bureaucracy. Same-same with education funding, arts funding, "national" forests, etc. Once Nevada became a state, why did the Federal govt. continue to "own" 85% of the state?
[Lex] -- Unless Due Process is applied in an equal manner to all.
As Mr. Justice Harlan once wrote:
"The full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution.
This 'liberty' is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints . . . " Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S.
[Lex] --- For due process, you must have a law legally enacted, then a person must be arrested, charged, tried, convicted, and have the conviction upheld throughout the appeal process.
Yep. "Legally enacted" is key to our discussion. How can a 'law' that outright prohibits life, liberty or property be Constitutionally "legal" ?
Further, that same process must be equally applied to all citizens. As long as this due process is done, your life, liberty or property can be forfeit.
Yep, you can lose all those if you are convicted of violating "legally enacted" laws by a fully informed jury of your peers. -- Todays jurys cannot even hear a defense based on our Constitution. Many juries are directed to find guilt from mere possession of 'illegal objects'. This is not due process.
[Lex] -- The sticking point is that you consider outright prohibitions to be unreasonable regulation, and therefore not "legally enacted", but judges trying people under such laws have not agreed with you.
Yep, judges too are ignoring their primary oath to support & defend our Constitution. Damn shame.
Usually, the case depends on the balancing of conflicting rights. Is it legal to prohibit you from cooking meth in your backyard? Yes, if the damage to other citizen's right to life is found to outweigh your right to property.
Correct. -- State/local governments can make reasonable regulatory laws about cooking meth. What else is new?
____________________________________
Politicalities writes:
I'm gonna have to side with Lex on this one. There is no Constitutional bar to the states enacting laws prohibiting drugs. Such laws are stupid, counterproductive, and anathema to the ideals of personal liberty, but are not unconstitutional.
See above as to Constitutionality, and feel free to argue specifics.