And I agree with him and you in regards to the recent Medical MJ ruling. Grown for your own purposes and never being sold, nor crossing state borders clearly puts the substance outside of the Commerce Clause. As such, it is strictly a State's power to regulate said substance. California (as a society, through the Proposition system) chose to allow it.
- Not so, as due process must also be followed in framing the laws. The judiciary has the duty to strike down unconstitutional prohibitive laws that violate due process.
There is no delegated government power to prohibit in our Constitution.
And is therefore reserved to the States: "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." So any State can prohibit a drug or alcohol in accordance to its laws.
Not true. States cannot infringe upon an individuals constitutional rights to life, liberty, or property without due process. -- See the 14th.
Your logic is circular. If a law has passed Constitutional review, as most drug prohibition laws have, then they have passed due process. If a power isn't delegated to the Feds, nor prohibited to the States, then the States reserve that power, or the people do. If the people of a State elect their State Reps, and empower them to prohibit drugs (or, conversely, permit them or otherwise regulate them), due process has been followed per the 10th A. Thus "dry" counties in Tennessee, or Medical MJ permits.
Again, the laws created must not infringe upon the individual rights outlined in the Constitution.
You omit the all-important "without due process." The State can take your life, liberty, and property, as long as due process is given, and the laws are equally applied to all. The Constitutional vetting of the law is part of the due process of individual cases.
Not true. States cannot infringe upon an individuals constitutional rights to life, liberty, or property without due process. -- See the 14th.
Your logic is circular.
Hardly. The Constitutions logic is not circular.
If a law has passed Constitutional review, as most drug prohibition laws have, then they have passed due process.
Nope. --- Opinions made by the SCOTUS are not 'laws' -- such reviews do not confer permanant constitutionality on a law, as any law is always open to further constitutional review.
If a power isn't delegated to the Feds, nor prohibited to the States, then the States reserve that power, or the people do. If the people of a State elect their State Reps, and empower them to prohibit drugs (or, conversely, permit them or otherwise regulate them), due process has been followed per the 10th A. Thus "dry" counties in Tennessee, or Medical MJ permits.
Laws repugnant to basic constitutional principles, laws that abridge our rights to life, liberty or property without due process, are unconstitutional according to the 14th Amendment.
Prohibitionary type laws do so. There is no delegated government power to prohibit in our Constitution. See the 10th as to powers prohibited to states. The 14th prohibits States from making laws that abridge/prohibit property without due process.
No level of government, fed, state or local, is authorized to outright prohibit guns, tobacco, booze, drugs, etc.. -- Our governments are empowered to 'reasonably regulate' such objects, within the Constitutional bounds that protect individual rights, privileges and immunities.
Again, the laws created must not infringe upon the individual rights outlined in the Constitution.
You omit the all-important "without due process."
Nit picking. That particular line 'omits' the words due process. My posts here do not.
The State can take your life, liberty, and property, as long as due process is given, and the laws are equally applied to all.
Correct only if you are convicted by a jury. -- Prohibitive laws attempt to make individuals automatically guilty by mere possession of 'illegal objects'. Juries are even 'directed' that they must convict if possession is proved. -- Prohibitions result in a parody of due process.
The Constitutional vetting of the law is part of the due process of individual cases.
Again, not true. Most lower courts do not even allow Constitutional defense arguments.
Tell me this. -- Why do you want a State to have the power to prohibit dangerous objects? - Isn't their power to regulate enough?
Hmm, not sure how I missed this. Ladies and gentlemen, I present the 21st Amendment to the United States Constitution:
2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
So "dry" counties are permitted because they are explicitly in the Constitution. So tell me, if the states have the power to infringe the rights of their citizens to consume intoxicating drugs, why was it necessary to specifically include it in the 21st Amendment? If the federal government has the power to prohibit drugs, why was the 18th Amendment necessary at all in the first place?