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).
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It’s also funny that Marijuana laws were originally enacted to curb Mexican immigration.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.
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.
Excellent short review of the Commerce Clause:
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/Commerce_Clause
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.
#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.
#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
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?
MSNBC has weighed in on the upcoming mortgage mess:
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.
#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.
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.