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).
So, Mexico is again telling the White House what to do. Thank god there are term limits for Calderon.
This issue seems designed to make me feel like a fool. I’m against legalization of marijuana, but I’m also against the feds trampling states rights. Someone is designing things so conservatives like me have no refuge in this issue. Maybe one of you more conspiratorially-minded guys could clarify for me?
Staggers the imagination, these people’s understanding of the Constitution. Use federal judges to legislate (ending Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell), then ignore the 10th Amendment and pass laws for the states.
Rich – Here’s the conspiracy ; they make laws in order to make people criminals (Ayn Rand) which makes it easier to control politically difficult sorts and fills the prisons which “solves” unemployment and creates business opportunities for the corps and enlarges the law enforcement mechanism. It’s a win-win-win for big govt and a lose-lose-lose for liberty. Why in the HELL would any conservative be in favor of criminalizing pot?
This is where the feds will take off the gloves, put on the Nazi jack boots, and show their true colors. We have a government that is openly contemptuous of its sheeple, and operates under the principle that those who obey the law are suckers.
i want a clear explanation of the 10th amendment
who as the power to do what
Mexico wants to stop the drug trafficking, but when that trafficking is threatened by legalizing a main illegal export, they get angry… seems a little strange.
#6-here ya go. the 10th amendment, word for word. yes, its this brief…
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.
there’s your explaination….
I hope OBL isn’t growing in our national parks. I’d also, like to hope, planes that used Guantanamo bay didn’t crash with 1 ton of H didn’t crash in a Mexico City airport.
# 8 i know the words but its still confusing as whose doing what is drug policies are a state or a federal domain
Easy explanation for the 10th amendment. Federal law will trump state, until the supreme’s decide differently.
All those leftist cheering for their Health Care by the Big Govt. should cheer for this too – same principles involved. You can’t pick and choose when it comes to 10th amendment. If you don’t want Fed’s trampling on CA marijuana laws, please join Tea Party and call for abolishing of all 10th amendment violations: Health Care Law, Dept. of Education, Dept. of Agriculture, oil drilling regulations, EPA… list is long and much have been added to it by this administration. But than, you love it when Obama rams down equally abhorrent abuses that you approve of. Pick a side and stay consistent.
The Fed has been trumping States rights for decades. People have sat on their collective thumbs and done nothing, especially when they are benefiting from it. Most recently, the overturning of the gay marriage ban by a FEDERAL judge.
The power of the Fed, regardless of the 10th amendment is in Federal funding of the States. We want that money…
The voter information pamphlet says about Prop 19, California could lose over 9 billion dollars in Federal education funding which is double of the potential income, and that’s just the beginning.
JCD can beat the drums all he wants, it makes no difference. in his own words, “SHUT-UP SLAVE”…
I can only assume, if they aren’t full of shit, EVERY Republican will jump to the defense of California. After all, they’ve gone on for decades and decades about “states rights”. Republicans believes that if a state wants to keep blacks at the back of the bus, ban gays from getting married, or ignore EPA rules they should be able to because STATES rights trump the evil Fed gov’ment. So lets see if they put up or shut up.
What are the odds that it will pass?
I think it might actually pass!
How many of the founding fathers were high when they signed the Declaration of Independence?
How many members of the Federal Government are high right now?
HA Ha Ha Ha Ha!
This should be really something!
I wonder if this measure passes will the City of Los Angeles boycott California like it did Arizona?
Funny how the hippies and gays love to invoke the 10th Amendment when it has to do with degeneracy, but outside of that, they hate it.
So, the sheeple will go from being economic serfs on Prozac, to economic serfs on weed. Who cares?
The 10th Amendment feud was hashed out over 100 years ago. The fascist Lincoln won. Any questions?
Rich, all things not listed for the Feds to control get flipped over to the states. At a guess 90% of what the Fed Gov. is doing should only be done by state govs. The states have the right to nullify Fed laws that cover items that aren’t listed as Fed. Gov. business.
It’s pretty bleeping clear that everybody thought that the interstate commerce clause wasn’t enough to make Alcohol illegal under fed law when that was done.
That being the case Fed law shouldn’t cover any drug or product locally produced for local in state consumption. Imports would be something else because that is commerce across state lines.
If the people of CA want to make growing and selling pot legal in their state more power to them. As long as it isn’t shipped across state lines they have the right but I wouldn’t count on Obama respecting that. Like most progressives he has no use for the Constitution.
I love this one. I fucking HATE California liberals, and am against the pothead law.
Similarly, I fucking HATE Federal cops, and will LOVE to see the two factions of assholes fight it out.
Start expecting EVEN MORE federal power grabs to be justified with the claim of national security if this states-rights/nullification movement concept gains legs. The federal gov’t does have a responsibility for the common defense, a.k.a. national security. Banning marijuana, along with everything else, will be placed under that rubric. They already have the argument in place to excuse the post-9/11 excesses. It’s ready-made.
Isn’t this like the Arizona immigration law? States are not allowed to nullify or usurp federal law.
This has got to be a dilema for the White house. Support legalization and piss off Mexico and the hispanic vote, or oppose it and piss off the pot heads, who vote mostly Democrat.
It’s also funny that Marijuana laws were originally enacted to curb Mexican immigration.
Crap like this makes me happy I gave up the badge and left law enforcement in CA. If I was still a cop I’d probably be busting any Federal Agent that steps on CA law. That would lead to a world of shit. I’ve been there, done that. We’re not supposed to intervene or arrest any other LEO if we believe them to be committing a crime on duty, take it to a supervisor they say. I didn’t.
Now, I don’t have to deal with it.
When a fed pot cop in California eats a bullet, will you have any sympathy?
I won’t.
If you light up some of the smoke might drift across the border so it will be covered by the Commerce Clause and the AG will win.
#7
You hit it on the head. Makes one question the motivation involved.
# 21 Greg Allen said: States are not allowed to nullify or usurp federal law.
No. The Federal Government is a government with LIMITED powers that are ENUMERATED in the U.S. Constitution. Only a State has general jurisdiction over its Citizens.
The U.S. Constitution can best be seen as a contract between the original States, and they were very reluctant to give their new Federal government any more power than absolutely necessary. The 10th Amendment memorialized that agreement.
James Madison thought that the Constitution was clear. Alexander Hamilton insisted on a Bill of Rights to make sure that future generations got the message. Sorry, Al, but we seem to have forgotten, and as you foresaw, now e have this Federal behemoth in our faces all the time.
The California pot situation will not be the major showdown. That will come when the Feds try to regulate State property law to get our bankster overlords off the hook. Under State law, a mortgage must be recorded in the County where the property is located, and reports indicate that this little detail was often ignored. This involves the vital Title Insurance business that has repeatedly issued insurance after searching the County records.
But you can bet that our bankster overlords will win this one. After all, Little bush taught us that “the Constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper.”
>> TooManyPuppies said, on October 16th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
>> If I was still a cop I’d probably be busting any Federal Agent that steps on CA law.
Are you serious? You’d arrest an FBI agent for enforcing a federal law if it differed from the state law?
Did they teach you constitutional law at the academy?
>> dusanmal said, on October 16th, 2010 at 10:27 am
>> If you don’t want Fed’s trampling on CA marijuana laws, please join Tea Party
Of course they same Tea Partiers want the Feds to meddle in your sex life. So, I guess it comes down to sex and drugs!
#28 Greg, please see #27. That’s precisely what we were taught in the early 90’s when I began my LE career.
Today’s recruits, that I still train in firearms, are taught the exact opposite. When some of our officers take a FLETC course, they’re taught that the founding fathers were terrorists.