Stepping up the Obama administration’s opposition to Proposition 19, the nation’s top law enforcement official promised to “vigorously enforce” federal drug laws against Californians who grow or sell marijuana for recreational use even if voters pass the legalization measure.

U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric Holder’s response to the initiative comes as the administration has been under pressure to campaign against it more forcefully. Last week, Mexico’s president, Felipe Calderon, chided the Obama administration for not doing enough to defeat it. And last month, nine former heads of the Drug Enforcement Administration publicly urged Holder to speak out.

This should be the 10th Amendment showdown of the decade. Ask yourself why an amendment to the Constitution was needed for alcohol prohibition? Why didn’t the feds just pass a law like they have for the criminalization of marijuana? Why would you ever amend the Constitution? Just pass a federal law. This case will prove the point if the feds act against the interests of California. This shows the further expansion of federal powers over the states and the public. (End of civics lecture).




  1. Sea Lawyer says:

    This nonsense all stems from SCOTUS rulings in the past 60 years that have made the Commerce Clause the only power the federal government needs to justify anything it does.

    This is very much related to the challenges to the new healthcare law forcing individuals to buy insurance. That is to say the government can force you to engage in commerce because it can’t regulate something that isn’t being done. No commerce to regulate impedes on the government’s power to regulate commerce. Or so this contortionist legal logic goes.

  2. bobbo, another junior Clarence Darrow tilting at Windmills says:

    Excellent short review of the Commerce Clause:

    http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/Commerce_Clause

  3. bobbo, another junior Clarence Darrow tilting at Windmills says:

    Well, maybe not “that” excellent as it stops around 1995. I think the two cases cited must have been modified by the more recent cases that have expanded the CC. I’m thinking of that case in the midwest that said the Feds could regulate food grown and consumed by a private individual on his own land.

    Yes, the CC directly opposes the concept of Federalism and is a tool for good and bad results. Surely not what the plain reading of the text would have anyone believe=aka: corruption aka power grab aks grounds for revolution.

  4. two to the head says:

    #7
    Maybe…
    Mexico has a good thing going. Calderon and all the higher ups are taking money under the table to let the cartels operate. Legalizing would ruin the whole operation.

  5. deowll says:

    #21 Hard to tell. The one that thing that has been established is that the Fed Gov can’t directly force a State Gov to do much of anything though it can cut off funding.

    Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

  6. jescott418 says:

    We no its a bit mind altering just like Alcohol is. Of course we all know Alcohol is mostly legal in all States. The question is, will this help or hurt the US by legalizing Pot. One question comes to mind that will we need to revise laws if pot is legalized to deal with impairment from Pot just as we have with Alcohol?

  7. Bhelverson says:

    MSNBC has weighed in on the upcoming mortgage mess:

  8. chuck says:

    During the recent Senate confirmation hearings for Justice Kagan, she was asked if there was any limit to the Commerce clause of the constitution. This is the clause which permits the Federal government to regulate laws within the states that affect commerce.

    She avoided answering the question. And it’s fairly clear that the Federal government (whether it is run by Democrats or Republicans) seems to believe that the Commerce clause allows it to do whatever it wants.

    Obviously, the sale of legal, medical marijuana involves commerce. But if it is restricted by the state to within it’s borders then the Commerce clause should not apply.

  9. chuck says:

    #35 – makes the point. If California wants Federal money for anything (and it does) then it will not pass any law which the Feds disagree with.

  10. Breetai says:

    Heh, I wish California would stand up for itself. But it will never happen. California liberals LOVE big government. the states are not big and intrusive enough for them.

  11. Ah_Yea says:

    deowll’s link also shows why ObamaCare is doomed.

    look under “Forced participation or commandeering”

    It’s so plain that even a donkey can understand it!

  12. RSweeney says:

    America needs a reboot.

    The FEDERAL task is hogging all the resources and needs to be reset to zero.

  13. MikeN says:

    >said the Feds could regulate food grown and consumed by a private individual on his own land.

    Bobbo, that case happened before 1995.

  14. MikeN says:

    From this post, we can conclude that John Dvorak supports slavery.

  15. bobbo, another junior Clarence Darrow tilting at Windmills says:

    #42–Mike==thanks to your prompting, I made another google search and found it:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

    If I was a lawyer, and someone paid me to do it, I’d like to compare this 1942 case with the later 1995 cases. Seems like the SCOTUS is talking out of both sides of its mouth.

    Wouldn’t that be odd?

    Quite an encyclopedic knowledge base you have there Mickey: Kudo’s. ((Unless, – you know!))

    Yep, the Commerce Clause, eating the rest of the Constitution as we argue about the level of taxation while the deficit grows.

    Ha, ha. We are all doomed.

  16. Animby - The Consitution's dead, Jim says:

    #45 bobbo, “the Commerce Clause, eating the rest of the Constitution”

    Very good, Bobby. I don’t always agree with you but I do enjoy the way you can turn a phrase. In this case, I also agree with you. The Commerce Clause has been too broadly interpreted. The Feds can find a connection between almost anything and interstate commerce if they just close their eyes and dream a little.

    But, I just know that if we make our objections clear to our soon-to-be elected legislators, they will rise to the challenge and write some more narrow definitions and restrictions on the Commerce Clause and our glorious leader will soon sign it into law freeing us from this legislative tyranny.

    Sorry, I had my eyes closed and dreamed a little.

  17. bobbo, just tilting at Windmills says:

    Animby–a Startrek reference? You are really stretching yourself there, good to see. Its too bad you are so busy all the time. When I’m wrong, I could/we all could benefit from your tutelage.

    I spoke too soon when finding that link above as it referenced one of my favorite examples of the CC: the idea that non-discrimination against colored people was not implemented by the courts by interpreting inalienable god given rights, or any of the Bill of Rights, or the further amendments==No, blacks were ironically treated like property, property passing in commerce the interference of which violated the Commerce Clause. Holy 13th Amendment!!!!!

    Anyway, yes the Supremes are singing a sour note here, its all from them. Trouble is, everything IS related to everything else including everything being related to commerce, only a matter of degree is at issue. Would a “conservative non-activist” court advance Federalism/10th Amend and defer to State’s Rights, or rather give an expansive meaning to the CC?

    As in all delicious treats, the issue can go either way under conservative or liberal menus depending on what other issues provide the entree. Gee, I didn’t mean to get off on a food metaphor.

    The question/issue is real/important/relevant. My own opinion is that Obama’s Healthcare Plan should fail as an overreach of Federal Power==requiring individuals to enter into commerce rather than simply impose higher general taxes and paying for healthcare that way.

    Sad when the Supremes let us down, the last link we have to a functioning government protecting our freedoms, in a non wingnut liebertardian way. Almost beautiful in its complex absurdity.

    Yea, verily.

  18. MikeN says:

    An interesting question is that the health care bill does not have a severability provision, so if one part is found unconstitutional, the rest remains in effect.
    It doesn’t have this provision, because the Senate bill that passed was not intended to be the final bill, so it has many errors that were not heeded.
    The Supreme Court recently ruled that even without this provision, they will assume it is there. Otherwise the Sarbanes Oxley financial law would have been thrown out.

  19. MikeN says:

    >like to compare this 1942 case with the later 1995 cases. Seems like the SCOTUS is talking out of both sides of its mouth.

    My guess is that the current Supreme Court would not rule this way if they heard the case today. I don’t remember a second case, but in 1995, the Court threw out a law saying you can’t have a gun near a school.

    I’d say the most relevant case is the Rauch case of a few years ago which dealt with assisted suicide in Oregon.

  20. roadrunner2525 says:

    We’ve already fought this war on Federal vs. States’ fights. It was called the Civil War (otherwise known as the War Between the States). The states lost, negating the 10th Amendment by force. Once lost, it can never be regained, resulting in a continuing expansion of Federal powers.

    There are two ways to rein the Federal powers: One – A Constitutional Convention where a new Constitution would be written (highly unlikely) and Two – A state or a group of states, needs to appeal the usurpation of states’ rights. This is more likely and this case is an immediate platform to do so.

    The Arizona law will likely be found unconstitutional because it is in a gray area of the Preamble to the Constitution – providing for the common defence. I see no such rationale for determining what we, as individuals, smoke, drink or eat. We are getting into the Ninth Amendment in that case.

    I believe California should immediately appeal any federal action against a California resident who legally obtained marijuana. At that time, they should be joined by every other group opposed to such an attack on civil liberties.

  21. Sea Lawyer says:

    #45, bobbo,

    Yes, that is definitely one of the most abominable SCOTUS ruling as far as federal power grabs go, with amazing logic that requires a gymnast to understand. The government can prevent you from producing something for your own use or consumption, because it allows you to not have to buy it from somebody else, which prevents the government from being able to regulate any commerce that would have occurred.

    This reasoning has since been extended to allow the feds to regulate intrastate commerce as well.

    It’s funny how the common law can, over the years, arrive at a place which appears to contradict what the written constitution says, and we just say “oh well, that’s how it goes.”

  22. bobbo, to the left and right of Obama says:

    Hey SL==you are quite the gymnast! Good summary. Yes, an absolute power grab for the Feds. I think roadrunner phrased it very provacatively and interestingly. As destructive is the other power shift from we the people to corporations via “Citizen’s United.” An negative activist decision if EVER there was one. Damage being played out right now and should be a real zoo in 2012. I’d cry, if any tears were left.

    Yes, all things, including “rights” to be kept in balance one against another-not a seismic shift to one far side or the other==all depending on where you think the fulcrum is.

  23. MikeN says:

    >Quite an encyclopedic knowledge base you have there

    If I truly had that much of an encyclopedia knowledge, my reply would have been much more snarky. Instead I just had to do an understated ‘before 1995.’

    I don’t have a problem with the Citizen’s United decision. It’s fate was sealed when the government said it had the right to ban books.

    “If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.” He also noted that since there was no way to distinguish between media and other corporations, these restrictions would allow Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, books, television and blogs.

  24. bobbo, to the left and right of Obama says:

    Mike==assuming that language comes from Citizens United, or even if it doesn’t, it goes to a quite seperate issue of “who” is speaking.” The import of Citizen’s United is that it equates money with speech and further allows for anonymous speech. Both are very bad and run counter to what a “democracy of the people” needs to survive much less prosper.

    Given our economics, political divisions, calcified two party system of winner take all, and yes Citizen’s United==I think USA is firmly circling the sewer. Not for destruction but for a deep reset lower on the international competitive scale. As always, we are living in interesting times.

  25. MikeN says:

    >a dispute over whether the non-profit corporation Citizens United could air a film critical of Hillary Clinton, and whether the group could advertise the film in broadcast ads featuring Clinton’s image,

    They spent money to produce the speech. Unless you want to claim the first amendment only applies to people talking outside on the road, the equivalence is inevitable.

  26. zarageek says:

    #32 If we throw out the commerce clause rationale behind federal laws we also throw out things like the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    While I’m all for legalizing marijuana, and I think Prop 19 is a good display of where some of the public’s feelings are, it looks like it’s going to take a federal law to make it truly legal anywhere in the U.S.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 5898 access attempts in the last 7 days.