Thank you for confirming your laziness and clarifying your mis-representation.
FReegards!
Posted on 01/05/2018 9:59:13 AM PST by Magnatron
Scott Adams has an interesting take on Sessions' recent announcement regarding federal pot laws enforcement. It's interesting on a couple of levels. It implies that Sessions is doing that 4D chess thing that the pro-Sessions people like to think, and if that's so, it makes me wonder (and desperately hope) that the Freep Sessions-cheerleading-section are right about his ability to work at a higher level than we Never-Sessions people can appreciate.
...but I dream.
“No but it gives Congress the authority to pass legislation to control it and you know it.”
Which section of the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate intrastate pot?
Yes, and Article I, section 8 says:
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
So Article VI refers to laws related to carrying out enumerated powers.
It seems to me that this is an issue that could really turn around the Republican party -- and no I don't mean they would become the party of legalized drugs.
Republicans and conservatives love to spout off about State's Rights", but as you note, it's only on the laws they agree with. Here's a chance for the Republicans and conservatives to put their money where their mouth is.
States Rights and the 10th Amendment don't mean you need to agree with what the individual laws are, only that you honor the Constitution and what it says. A lot of Republicans won't agree with drug legalization, but they absolutely should be in agreement that a state has the right to do that. If not, they are no more than nanny-state Democrats, just for the things that put a bug in their own butts.
And don't give me the argument that this opens the door to abortion. It shouldn't. Abortion is about life and death. A tenant of the Libertarian view (and one that should be a conservative idea as well) is that you should be legally able to do what you want, as long as it doesn't hurt someone else or restrict their own rights. Abortion does not fit into this model.
Use the pot money to fund the wall. Then let Congress impeach you for building the wall.
Those state laws are violate the Constitution if they seek to preempt the Federal law per se. There is no question about that. It has been decided is 40 cases by the Supreme Court. The answer is for you pot lovers is to amend the Constitution. Do you actually think that if a state passes their little law that we don’t have to pay federal income taxes that we DON’T? Are you sure that is the law? When your house gets repossessed by the Feds will you still be blabbering that nonsense?
I don’t get it. But, I have thoroughly enjoyed our discussion of the actual law. I enjoy teaching on this subject in the face of such blissful and prevalent ignorance because it is so desperately needed by so many with child-like misunderstanding. ( that big dog in that picture is jeff Sessions and that little dog is those colorado pot heads? )
Have a great weekend. You might wish to avoid getting stoned.
I assume you're meaning this?
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof... ...shall be the supreme Law of the Land..."
I think the part that is being missed here is "...which shall be made in Pursuance thereof... which denotes that only laws made in pursuance of the Constitution will be the supreme law of the land. If it's not in the Constitution, the 10th Amendment takes care of the rest.
Laws made by the Federal government MUST be iterated in some form in the Constitution. If not, then the States make the laws.
Of course, we've strayed a bit from that notion...
Actually, instead of ignoring the law, if we change the law it's a political win for republicans. Attorney General Sessions (who has the authority under the Controlled Substances Act) can say, "I have administrative authority to remove pot from schedule 1 of the controlled substances act, because it has been found to have medical benefits and a limited potential for abuse, so I'm removing it." That would be a huge step in the right direction from simply ignoring the law. I personally disapprove of marijuana, but I have mixed feelings about legalizing it. Even with my distaste for pot though, I would very much prefer changing the law to simply ignoring the law.
I hope President Trump will either enforce the law and articulate why that is good for our children, or change the law and argue why removing that drug from the banned list is good for America.
raiderboy is a lawyer.
Agamemnon is a pharma drug worker.
Both are Authoritarians.
Both make money on marijuana prohibition.
Never ask a fireman about home safety.
They are benefactors of over regulation, until your hot coffee is only drank luke warm.
“Actually, Congress didn’t pass a law to ban marijuana. It passed a law to allow the executive branch to decide what substances to ban. The authority to reschedule marijuana belongs to the President. He can do it at will.”
Exactly correct - we just need to read the law (is that forbidden on FR, just like reading the full article before commenting is forbidden?). The Attorney General has the authority to decide which drugs are banned:
Title 21 United States Code (USC) Controlled Substances Act
SUBCHAPTER I — CONTROL AND ENFORCEMENT
Part B — Authority to Control; Standards and Schedules
§811. Authority and criteria for classification of substances
(a) Rules and regulations of Attorney General; hearing
The Attorney General shall apply the provisions of this subchapter to the controlled substances listed in the schedules established by section 812 of this title and to any other drug or other substance added to such schedules under this subchapter. Except as provided in subsections (d) and (e) of this section, the Attorney General may by rule—
(1) add to such a schedule or transfer between such schedules any drug or other substance if he—
(A) finds that such drug or other substance has a potential for abuse, and
(B) makes with respect to such drug or other substance the findings prescribed by subsection (b) of section 812 of this title for the schedule in which such drug is to be placed; or
(2) remove any drug or other substance from the schedules if he finds that the drug or other substance does not meet the requirements for inclusion in any schedule.
Rules of the Attorney General under this subsection shall be made on the record after opportunity for a hearing pursuant to the rulemaking procedures prescribed by subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5. Proceedings for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of such rules may be initiated by the Attorney General (1) on his own motion, (2) at the request of the Secretary, or (3) on the petition of any interested party.
(b) Evaluation of drugs and other substances
The Attorney General shall, before initiating proceedings under subsection (a) of this section to control a drug or other substance or to remove a drug or other substance entirely from the schedules, and after gathering the necessary data, request from the Secretary a scientific and medical evaluation, and his recommendations, as to whether such drug or other substance should be so controlled or removed as a controlled substance. In making such evaluation and recommendations, the Secretary shall consider the factors listed in paragraphs (2), (3), (6), (7), and (8) of subsection (c) of this section and any scientific or medical considerations involved in paragraphs (1), (4), and (5) of such subsection. The recommendations of the Secretary shall include recommendations with respect to the appropriate schedule, if any, under which such drug or other substance should be listed. The evaluation and the recommendations of the Secretary shall be made in writing and submitted to the Attorney General within a reasonable time. The recommendations of the Secretary to the Attorney General shall be binding on the Attorney General as to such scientific and medical matters, and if the Secretary recommends that a drug or other substance not be controlled, the Attorney General shall not control the drug or other substance. If the Attorney General determines that these facts and all other relevant data constitute substantial evidence of potential for abuse such as to warrant control or substantial evidence that the drug or other substance should be removed entirely from the schedules, he shall initiate proceedings for control or removal, as the case may be, under subsection (a) of this section.
(c) Factors determinative of control or removal from schedules
In making any finding under subsection (a) of this section or under subsection (b) of section 812 of this title, the Attorney General shall consider the following factors with respect to each drug or other substance proposed to be controlled or removed from the schedules:
(1) Its actual or relative potential for abuse.
(2) Scientific evidence of its pharmacological effect, if known.
(3) The state of current scientific knowledge regarding the drug or other substance.
(4) Its history and current pattern of abuse.
(5) The scope, duration, and significance of abuse.
(6) What, if any, risk there is to the public health.
(7) Its psychic or physiological dependence liability.
(8) Whether the substance is an immediate precursor of a substance already controlled under this subchapter.
Yes, that is abundantly clear.
Conservatively: Having laws you don’t intend to enforce is deleterious to law abiding. So, either enforce or repeal.
Politically: Loser issue for Republicans. The pot issue can only bring pot heads off the couch to vote D (if enforced) or keep straight edge conservatives from voting R (if repealed). I don’t get the winning play here, politically. I’d just leave it alone for the first term. Do one of the two Conservative approaches in a second term, when Trump can handle any outcome.
Thank you for confirming your laziness and clarifying your mis-representation.
FReegards!
> Thank you for confirming your laziness and clarifying your mis-representation.
Bite me.
The law the Congress passed that lets them regulate drugs. Don't play stupid here, it doesn't work.
Just further proof that so-called "Conservatives" LOVE big government, as long as it's THEIR big government.
“The answer is for you pot lovers is to amend the Constitution.”
I knew you’d jump into fallacy land eventually.
1st off, supporting the 10th Amendment hardly qualifies anyone as a “pot lover”.
2ndly, Congress doesn’t have the right to amend the Constitution without the States ratifying. Fact: Congress had to amend the Constitution to enact alcohol prohibition. Then they had to amend the Constitution again to repeal the 18th Amendment.
So where’s the Constitutional amendment giving Fedzilla the authority to make cannabis illegal???
As I stated elsewhere in this thread. It’s my experience prohibitionists & nanny-state lovers tend to be very angry people in love with fallacies.
Ah...now I get it.
Libertarians like yourself mistakenly believe that your assumed licence to do just about anything you want to do in no way impacts the safety and well being of others.
Please, by all means, explain to me exactly HOW my growing a PLANT in my backyard, or smoking it my living room, has ANY impact on your safety and well being?
I have no problem with classifying THC as a Schedule 2 drug as a refined and qualified active drug substance extracted and purified from well defined crops of cannabis or as synthesized and purified in a lab, which is presented in a well defined dosage form having been formally studied with clinically demonstrated end points and safety data at a defined dosage, and labeled dosage administration, safety precautions, and stated potency metrics -- approved for marketing by FDA like any other Schedule 2 drug is.
So, you want to make sure Pharma gets their cut. Got it.
Excellent point!
Do you think it is prohibition to federally ban heroin and PCP or how about sex trafficking? The regulation of narcotics has been upheld thousand times a year. Evey narcotics prison sentence handed down daily is predicated on clear constitutional jurisdiction and control by the Federal government. There is not even an argument to the contrary. Why do you advocate POT use?
Under the doctrine of preemption, which is based on the Supremacy Clause, federal law preempts state law, even when the laws conflict. Thus, a federal court may require a state to stop certain behavior it believes interferes with, or is in conflict with, federal law.
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.