Our government, the Constitution and Weed

Discussion in 'Marijuana Legalization' started by RedMist, Sep 25, 2009.

  1. the other day I was doing some research on if the constitution allows the banning of MJ
    by the federal gov or not, well apparently the feds do or say they do have that power because of the interstate commerce act cause dealers and supplies take it across state bordes, they use this loopoll. My idea, if some how a bill or law is proposed making weed legal but has an amendment saying you cant buy it with out a card, and each state has a card. So you cant buy out of your state. So all weed is grown shipped and processed in each individual state. would this some how take the interstate commerce act out of the equation, leaving the feds nothing to stand on in terms of constitutional backing to keep marijuana illegal. Discuss
     
  2. That sounds like a good idea but i find it highly unlikely as each state would have to push legalization even though its federaly illegal. Then cooperate perfectly with eachother for the cards and borders. Plus your always going to have smugglers trying to get better weed from better soil and shit. Its just as likely that the feds might push stricter laws to try and stop it.
     
  3. #3 madtown, Sep 25, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2009
    This would not work. In fact this was exact argument was made in Gonzalez v. Raich.
    Gonzales v. Raich - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The dissenting opinion Is pretty good though. Note: The dissenters are all conservative.
     
  4. I have always wondered why someone who is well connected financially and legally, doesn't take a possession charge up trough the court system to the surpreme court, challenging the constitutionality of cannabis's legality (or lack there of).
     
  5. Thomas says it best

    Justice Thomas also wrote a separate dissent, stating in part:
    “Respondent's local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not "Commerce ... among the several States."
    Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that "commerce" included the mere possession of a good or some personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana.
    ”
    and
    “If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article I powers -- as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause -- have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to "appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."
    ”
    and further:
    “If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined", while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite."[




    It also says that conservative states like Mississippi, Alabama, and another one, backed the MMJ patient because of the states rights issue. Thomas declares that if the feds can ban mj cause of interestate commerce, than they ban anything from guns to any other items. So my position make all the anti-mj republicans choice between having mj be illegal or have their guns in position where they could be banned due to interestate commerce act. they have to choose one or the other. It would be sick of them to bitch about guns being threatened and keeping down weed with the same clause.
     
  6. #6 madtown, Sep 26, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 26, 2009
    Most charges are state charges. States have the legal authority to make it illegal. As such those challenges would FAIL.
     
  7. The problem with comparing this to guns is that the Second Amendment expressly gives people the right to own guns.

    In order to fully understand Raich you should also read Wickard v. Fulburn, and Carolene Products. These cases lay out the current commerce clause doctrine. I think that the commerce clause has been interpreted FAR too broadly, and has given the federal government far too much power.

    The commerce clause will also be used to in order to adopt health care legislation as well.
     

Share This Page