Posted on 07/27/2011 10:42:14 AM PDT by Kaslin
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican and former U.S. attorney, has never been keen on his state's Compassionate Use of Medical Marijuana Act, which his predecessor, Jon Corzine, signed into law on the last day of his administration. But last week, Christie announced that New Jersey will proceed with plans to let six nonprofit organizations distribute marijuana to patients with "debilitating medical conditions" such as cancer, AIDS and multiple sclerosis, despite the risk of federal prosecution.
In Arizona, meanwhile, the Medical Marijuana Act approved by voters last November remains on hold thanks to Gov. Jan Brewer, who worries that it conflicts with the federal Controlled Substances Act. Brewer, a Republican who proudly advocates a "new federalism" that "protects the States and (their) citizens against an overreaching federal government," in this case seems happy to let the Obama administration override the will of Arizona's voters.
Although President Obama has repeatedly said he opposes "using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue," several U.S. attorneys warned last spring that compliance with state law offers no protection against federal prosecution for growing or distributing marijuana. That position was confirmed by a June 29 memo from Deputy Attorney General James Cole.
Citing this reversal, Brewer has asked a federal judge to decide whether the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act, which she opposed before the election, "complies with federal law" or is "pre-empted in whole or in part because of an irreconcilable conflict with federal law." Oddly, Brewer expresses no preference between those two diametrically opposed choices, which reinforces the impression that her suit is a veiled attempt to overturn Arizona's law without antagonizing its supporters.
Brewer claims to be concerned about the legal exposure of state employees who license and regulate dispensaries. But Dennis Burke, the U.S. attorney for Arizona, says he has "no intention of targeting or going after people who are implementing ... state law."
In any case, all state regulators would be doing is determining who qualifies for a medical exemption from state drug penalties. As the American Civil Liberties Union notes in a motion to dismiss Brewer's suit, performing that function does not conflict with the Controlled Substances Act or prevent the federal government from enforcing it.
The ACLU argues that there are no plausible grounds for charging state employees with a federal crime, since licensing and regulating dispensaries does not involve growing or distributing marijuana and does not meet the intent and knowledge requirements for convicting someone of conspiracy, aiding and abetting, acting as an accessory or money laundering. The group adds that regulators could not be prosecuted simply for failing to rat out licensees to the feds, since "respecting confidentiality does not constitute an affirmative act," which is required to convict someone of concealing a felony.
Although Vermont, Delaware and New Jersey have proceeded with plans for state-licensed dispensaries despite the prosecution threats, Brewer is not the only governor who has capitulated to federal pressure. Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire, a Democrat who had supported a bill that would have authorized dispensaries, decided to veto it after receiving a threatening letter from U.S. attorneys. Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee, who ran as an independent, likewise has halted plans for dispensaries.
But Brewer's timidity is especially striking in light of her devotion to state autonomy in areas such as health care, where she has challenged federally mandated insurance, and immigration, where she has sought to pick up the slack from an administration she perceives as insufficiently committed to enforcing the law. "The United States has a federal government, not a national government," she declared in a speech last March, promising to "pursue a policy of renewed federalism" and complaining that "never during our nearly 100 years of statehood has federal interference ... been more blatant."
Two months later, Brewer surrendered to federal interference by suspending her state's medical marijuana program. Legal scholars often bemoan "the drug exception to the Fourth Amendment." Apparently there is also a drug exception to the 10th Amendment.
Where is this prohibited in the Constitution? Answer: It isn't.
Of course not. I never said otherwise. I simply called it what it is.
Where in the Constitution is the SCOTUS granted its power as final arbiter of the Constitution's meaning? Answer: Nowhere. John Marshall simply seized that power when the opportunity presented itself. The Constitution died that day.
You may comfort yourself that we aren't (yet) under the bootheel of "a totalitarian, communist state", if you like. It matters little. What we are under is the arbitrary rule-at-whim tyranny of the completely unaccountable. That it could get worse (and probably will), and that other countries have (had) it worse, is a discussion of degree, not kind.
"Stroke of the pen, law of the land", applies to more than just the imperial presidency.
Very similar to the Mafia. That’s government.
It's for the children. /sarcasm
See Brutus' 11th and 12th essays. For the pro side, see Federalist...IIRC it's 78. Hamilton.
The reason the plant is so effective vs. synthetic THC is that it is impossible to synthesize the same structure in a lab. See the papers on synthetic THC by Dr. Alex Shulgin
Unfortunately, research and development of this plant is still prohibited nearly worldwide. Very few chemists in the US are allowed and the government only allows those few to work with government-produced cannabis (garbage).
One day people will wake up. I am confident that cannabis will yield far better meds than opium.
There's no question the court has gained latitude over time. That's the nature of the government under this Constitution. Each precedent creates the foundation for the next, and so on. None of this is a surprise:
When the courts will have a precedent before them of a court which extended its jurisdiction in opposition to an act of the legislature, is it not to be expected that they will extend theirs, especially when there is nothing in the constitution expressly against it? and they are authorised to construe its meaning, and are not under any controul?Brutus, 31 January 1788
Nonsense.
That was well understood at the time, by proponents and opponents of the Constitition.
Now you want to argue legislative intent, when earlier you rejected it? ROFL!!!
It should not be hard to recognize that our government is simply out of control. That all four branches (the professional bureaucracy is effectively a fourth branch) regularly and routinely seize powers not granted to them. That they are functionally a tyranny.
Even the worst of the Federalists did not (overtly) intend to create an arbitrary, capricious, unlimited, and unaccountable government ... yet that is precisely what we have. Delegated authority is irrelevant to it; seized power is the rule of the day. It's tyranny, even if some folks are unwilling to call it that. Even your own arguments on this thread support that fact.
"Gained latitude"?
That's a really soft and fuzzy way of saying "seized power". Trouble is, those who seize power aren't particularly soft and fuzzy.
I think it's pretty obvious.
Incorrect. I said nothing of anyone's intent.
Is the Controlled Substance Act a federal law? Yes.
Does it criminalize marijuana? Yes.
Does federal law trump contradictory state law? Yes.
End of story.
Wow. i haven't seen the modern fixation n the absolute worship of the law stated quite so succintly in a while.
Thanks.
Violent crime has plunged in CA since medical marijuana was started in 1996.¹ According to your questionable and unsupported claim, that shouldn't have happened.
Your evidence for increased crime is...?
______________________________________
¹http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/cacrime.htm
Just stating the facts. Ignore them at your own risk.
Duh! So ... why try to invent constitutional fig-leaves to cover its naked power grabbing? Why pretend that the interstate commerce clause authorizes controlling "substances"? Why not simply recognize that neither the Congress, nor the courts, nor the executive are granted any such authority? Why not simply recognize that they have baldly seized the power to do it, and nobody is in any position to say them "nay"?
You're quoting the anti-federalists, who more or less predicted that outcome. Why not say "they were right"?
I'm not pretending. That's the law.
Why not simply recognize that neither the Congress, nor the courts, nor the executive are granted any such authority?
Because they have the authority. Article 3 gives the SCOTUS the power to interpret the law. And that's that.
Why not simply recognize that they have baldly seized the power to do it, and nobody is in any position to say them "nay"?
Actually, the people could pass an amendment saying NAY anytime they want. But most people like it the way it is.
You're quoting the anti-federalists, who more or less predicted that outcome. Why not say "they were right"?
I say it all the time. But see, they didn't predict that the Constitution would be violated. They predicted that the Constitution ALLOWED such expanding power. They saw that implied powers, combined with an unaccountable supreme judiciary, was certain to lead to ever-expanding power.
In short, the antifederalists argued that the Constitution was a horribly flawed document that should have been rejected on the grounds that it granted virtually unbounded power to the national government. I agree.
No, it's the whimsical, arbitrary, unaccountable ruling of the SCOTUS. That doesn't mean goons with MP-5s won't enforce that. It just means that when they do, they're enforcing the edicts of tyrants.
Article 3 gives the SCOTUS the power to interpret the law.
So says the SCOTUS. How ... convenient.
Actually, the people could pass an amendment saying NAY anytime they want.
ROFL!!!!
I say it all the time.
Good. Keep it up.
But see, they didn't predict that the Constitution would be violated.
If so, then they were wrong. It's violated routinely. Drug laws are a prime example.
They predicted that the Constitution ALLOWED such expanding power.
That's the least of its flaws.
the antifederalists argued that the Constitution was a horribly flawed document that should have been rejected on the grounds that it granted virtually unbounded power to the national government.
I don't agree. The Constitution does not grant such powers. It's worse than that. The Constitution offers absolutely no way to prevent the national government seizing powers it was not granted.
You contradict yourself. Why is it good to say the antifeds were right when you disagree with them? Makes no sense. It’s because you’re trying to square the circle.
When society rejects the government, the government has lost legitimacy. The battle becomes, as you point out, one of brute force and wills.
A person or group can be right about some things, and wrong about others. A person or group can see disaster looming, but be wrong in some respects as to the complete nature and extent of the disaster.
So ... the antifeds were correct that the proposed Constitution was a disaster waiting to happen. I argue that it was worse than they thought. Not a hard concept to follow, and requires no squaring of circles. In fact, in your efforts to find Constitutional authority for acts of government which completely lack such, you appear to me to be trying to square the circle.
yeah, well I hope Huck reads this. I think that is who you meant to address it to. I get it. He doesn’t.
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.