Do you support the original intent of the Commerce Clause and Tenth Amendment, yes or no?
“Do you support the original intent of the Commerce Clause and Tenth Amendment, yes or no?”
Yes, but apparently there’s some misunderstanding of their intent. Commodities which are traded between, through, or across state borders, illegal or legal; moral or immoral; just or unjust; holy or unholy; can and should be regulated by the federal government. And who says it’s Colorado-grown pot and not weed coming in from Mexico anyway? Regulation and separation makes locally-grown weed impossible to do profitably. We’re already seeing it here. Projected tax revenues are much lower that projections. Why is that (that’s a rhetorical question)?
States can produce their own food, their own supplies, and anything else. The second those items cross their borders, illegally or not, the second it becomes the business of the feds. That’s what this lawsuit is all about. The feds must step in and regulate, ban, or force Colorado’s hand to end illegal distribution. Colorado did a horrible thing legalizing marijuana before it was able to eliminate 95% of the illegal distribution. It’s not fair, just, or correct for Colorado citizens. It’s not fair, just, or correct for Colorado weed farmers. It’s not fair, just, or correct for Kansas and Nebraska. They don’t want it in their states, and they’re abiding by the federal laws prohibiting it. I’m 100% FOR this as it’s clearly spelled out in the Constitution. Refer to USC: “general welfare of the United States”.
“What moves between states isn’t ‘international.’”
Weed coming from Mexico was, is, and always will be international. And at this point in time, 98% of the weed is still coming from Mexico. If we had the damned wall built between us and Mexico, it doesn’t matter anyway. The Commerce Clause enables the feds to regulate weed regardless. The framers knew this quite well... they were experts in commodities trading.