Federal Judge Rules Against Medical Marijuana Clubs

CNSNEWS.com ^ | 6/14/02 | Jim Burns

[FreeTally]

You are using the 9th and 10th amendments as justifucation for federal laws on drug profibition? Now I have seen it all. Seriously, my life is complete.

[Texaggie79]

Haven't toked in years, but I got my NORML button in the mail today :P

[Texaggie79]

roflmao

[tacticalogic]

Way to go Asscroft!!! Whoever said that states have rights was an idiot. It all belongs to the massive FED. Woohoo, I can't wait till you come take my rights away too!!!

Ashcroft's respect for States' Rights does seem a little spotty. He's brought the full weight of the federal government to bear on California's medical marijuana laws, but their gun confiscations remain unchallenged.

[FreeTally]

Wow, I didn't realize there were so many potheads on FR.

Yawn! This has been gone over with you jerks hundreds of times on FR. Your intentional reluctance to understand the Constitution has gotten very old.

[Fedupwithit]

It's coming around. We need intervention like this from the Feds. Heres why.

People vote for something like this marijuana bill.

FedGov comes in and tramples the vote, or starts arresting people doing what has been deemed leagl by the vote of the people.

People get heated.

Even though the topic is marijuana, it is still the constitutional right to vote that is being stepped on.

More people pick up the cause of our right to vote not being respected.

One directly feeds another.

At least thats what I think : )

[Huck]

To bad they didn't make an amendment for it. They have no Constitutional grounds.

If that is what you or the people of California believe, they can take the US to court. They can convince other states to join them. But that isn't the argument they are making. Frankly, pursuing that line would lessen their already minimal chances for success.

[Texaggie79]

You are correct. Following the USC is long forgotten......

[TightSqueeze]

Wow, I didn't realize there were so many potheads on FR.

Right, like you never inhaled, if you are over 20 and under 60 you probably have smoked a little doobie in your life. If not congratulations, you belong to a small but insignificant minority group. paleo-nurds :-`)

[Huck]

You are correct. Following the USC is long forgotten......

I disagree.

[jadimov]

.....It's illegal now. That is the great thing about this Republic we live in. The PEOPLE will vote on it.....Majority rules.....

It's called "tyranny of the majority". The Constitution was designed to prevent it from happenning. That is why the federal government is given certain powers. All powers not given to federal government belong to the states and the people.

Amendment X - 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.

The states are supposed to decide for themselves on most issues. Under which power can the feds legally claim a right to forbid the growing and selling of drugs within a state?

[jadimov]

.....Except when one is speaking of a federally controlled substance.....

The Constitution doesn't give the federal government the right to control any substance. That right is reserved to the states.

[Texaggie79]

So you think the 18 Amendment wasn't necessary for prohibition?

[FreeTally]

MeGoody posted that, not I. But I did experiment when I was younger, like most people. I am not a paleo-nerd. ;-/

[jadimov]

15.....Unless you count the Founding Clause of the DofI, and the 9th, 10th, 19th, and 21st Amendments to the BofR.....(donh)

18.....AFAIK none of those were invoked in claiming authority for the CSA or the DEA. Both were enacted/authorized under the Commerce Clause.....(tacticalogic)

Article 1 Section 8 - To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes

The commerce clause gives the feds power to regulate commerce between the states. The feds have no lawful power to regulate commerce inside a state.

[jadimov]

It's not about pot. It's about limiting the powers of the federal government and forcing that government to obey the Constitution that created it. If you think pot should be illegal, have your own state legislature ban it. You can even encourage other states to ban it. It would be a different matter entirely if all 50 states banned it. It would mean that the majority in each state voted against it. That was the intent of the founding fathers. They wanted a union of republics not an all powerful central government.

[tacticalogic]

The feds have no lawful power to regulate commerce inside a state.

They tried to tell FDR that, but he did it anyway, even if it took the Court Packing Bill to get the USSC to go along with it. We've been suffering the consequences ever since.

[steve50]

A Zogby poll shows 66% in favor of medical use nationwide. I guess these authoritarians won't even honor their false god of 'democracy' when it's against them.

[jadimov]

.....they can take the US to court.....

That only works if the courts will hear the case. There are a few other constitutional issues that the federal courts refuse to hear. What should people do then? Can a state court declare a federal law unconstitutional?

[thepitts]

The State of California is obligated to use the full force of the State police force to protect individuals from harassment and prosecution by federal agencies.

This is what SHOULD happen.