Posted on 06/14/2002 12:15:06 PM PDT by kattracks
Following the USC has been replace with leading it around by the nose.
Indeed it has.
At the time, the states allowed it because they were desperate for help - anything to get out of the Depression. What would happen if the states started fighting federal power grabs on Constitutional grounds. I'm not talking about secession. To me, that is like letting a burgular have your home. I'm talking about standing and fighting.
I don't know if I'd quite characterize it that way. I don't think the states were quite that desperate. FDR didn't have to ask the states, he just had to co-opt the USSC. When he originally proposed his New Deal programs, he was told he'd need a Constitutional Amendment to authorize it. He bastardized the Commerce Clause to avoid letting the states have any say in the matter.
ESA = ???
.....So any state can start passing out whatever kind of 'medication' they like, no matter what the federal government has to say about it?.....
Yes.
The states are bound by their own constitutions and laws created by their own citizens. If the federal government wants that power, it must ask the states for it by way of Constitutional amendment.
If the issue is constitutional, then why is the pot lobby using the mob rule approach to legitimize pot rather than going to the Supreme Court?
The Tenth Amendment says the Federal government is only entitled to powers that are granted to it in the Constitution. All other powers are reserved to the States, or to the people.
I'd like an explanation of where you think the Constitution grants the Federal government the power to interfere in California's medical marijuana policy?
Not looking for a legal reference or anything. Just a brief explanation based upon your understanding of the Constitution.
The wheels of justice turn slowly. The problem I have with the California proposition and similar propositions is they almost dare the Federal government to assert itself, which of course it will, all the while leaving the Constitutional question alone. It seems like such a loser strategy.
IMO, they should forget about the Constituional question. Unless California wants to argue that the DEA, the FDA and the Dept. of HHS, plus the FBI, the CIA, and the Justice Dept. are ALL engaged in unconstitutional activity, all so they can let some cancer patients smoke weed, they'd best just leave that one alone. I would. The state, and the country, is so astronomically far from that view of things, it would only make things worse. And as I said, it almost taunts the Feds to pass laws clearly in violation of Federal law.
What they ought to put on the ballot is a resolution saying that the people of California desire the Attorney General to initiate an inquiry into the removal of marijuana from Schedule 1 as per the CSA of 1970. They should further resolve that California desires that the other 9 states would hold similar ballot refereda, so that the will of the people of the several states could be known.
I don't think they would get large numbers. But they should go that way. If a majority of states agreed with California, it might become a Presidential issue (and it wil have to be, because the Executive branch controls the CSA. Of course, if folks elected Senators who all favor the change, they could make it a litmus test issue for confirming the next Attorney General or Sec. of HHS.
See? There are actually quite a few approaches that could be followed. I suspect the strategy that NORML is using here is just to "raise awareness" and get publicity. It has to be. They knew they would fail. And if you look at the suggestions I have put forward, and imagine how this issue might play out, you'll see there really isn't much public support out there. Not enough to move on it.
And one last thing: priorities. We have a war on terror to fight. The Attorney General and the Sec. of HHS are heavily involved in that. Can you imagine what it would look like if they allocated resources right now to researching the medical efficacy of marijuana? It would look pretty bad. It ain't gonna happen any time soon.
Damn Straight! It should only be sold in liquor stores, to keep it out of the hands of children.
Red Herring. The government doesn't have to allocate resources to do this. All they have to do is grant the waivers to anyone who wants to conduct private research. They just don't want to.
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.