Thread: The Latest: Justice may crack down on legalized marijuana

The Latest: Justice may crack down on legalized marijuana

Associated Press Thursday, February 23, 2017

WASHINGTON — The Latest on President Donald Trump (all times local):

4:15 p.m.

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer is suggesting the Trump administration may crack down on states that have legalized recreational marijuana.

Spicer says during a press briefing Thursday that the issue rests with the Justice Department. But he says, "I do believe that you'll see greater enforcement of it."

He adds that it's "something that the Department of Justice I think will be further looking into."

President Donald Trump said as a candidate that he supports medical marijuana. But Spicer says there's a big difference between that and the recreational use of the drug.

The Justice Department has several options available, including filing lawsuits on the grounds that state laws regulating pot are unconstitutional because they are pre-empted by federal law.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_...ium=socialflow

The Justice Department has several options available, including filing lawsuits on the grounds that state laws regulating pot are unconstitutional because they are pre-empted by federal law.

There is no legal argument to support the claim that pot is unconstitutional. In fact, there's numerous legal arguments to go the other way against federal authority to ban pot to begin with.

Originally Posted by Judy

There is no legal argument to support the claim that pot is unconstitutional. In fact, there's numerous legal arguments to go the other way against federal authority to ban pot to begin with.

Keep in mind it took a constitutional amendment, Section two of the 18th Amendment, to allow our federal government to enter the states to prohibit the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors. But this power was repealed by the 21st Amendment!

So, where is the grant of power in our federal Constitution allowing the federal government to enter the states to prohibit the growth, sale, use or transportation of marijuana within the various State borders?

JWK



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.___Tenth Amendment

Precisely. Thank you Johnwk.

Our priority under such circumstances should be to abide by our Constitution, and particularly its Tenth Amendment. If there is to be a federal law regarding marijuana, then utilize our Constitution's Article V method for change, just as it was used with regard to "intoxicating liquors".

JWK

The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? ______ MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

The Supremacy Clause puts Federal laws above state laws. Therefore, if the Federal government wants to enforce marijuana laws in Colorado or Washington, it can. Any attempt by those states to interfere would be ruled unconstitutional.

Supremacy Clause

Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause because itprovides that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Lawof the Land." It means that the federal government, in exercising any of the powers enumeratedin the Constitution, must prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power.
The concept of federal supremacy was developed by Chief Justice John Marshall, who led theSupreme Court from 1801 to 1835. In mcculloch v. maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 4 L. Ed. 579(1819), the Court invalidated a Maryland law that taxed all banks in the state, including a branchof the national bank located at Baltimore. Marshall held that although none of the enumeratedpowers of Congress explicitly authorized the incorporation of the national bank, the Necessary and Proper Clause provided the basis for Congress's action. Having established that theexercise of authority was proper, Marshall concluded that "the government of the Union, thoughlimited in its power, is supreme within its sphere of action."
After the Civil War, the Supreme Court was more supportive of States' Rights and used theTenth Amendment, which provides that the powers not delegated to the federal government arereserved to the states or to the people, to justify its position. It was not until the 1930s that theCourt shifted its position and invoked the Supremacy Clause to give the federal governmentbroad national power. The federal government cannot involuntarily be subjected to the laws ofany state.
The Supremacy Clause also requires state legislatures to take into account policies adopted bythe federal government. Two issues arise when State Action is in apparent conflict with federallaw. The first is whether the congressional action falls within the powers granted to Congress. IfCongress exceeded its authority, the congressional act is invalid and, despite the SupremacyClause, has no priority over state action. The second issue is whether Congress intended itspolicy to supersede state policy. Congress often acts without intent to preempt state policymaking or with an intent to preempt state policy on a limited set of issues. Congress may intendstate and federal policies to coexist.
Some federal legislation preempts state law, however, usually because Congress believes itslaw should be supreme for reasons of national uniformity. For example, the National LaborRelations Act of 1935 (Wagner Act) (29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq.) preempts most state lawdealing with labor unions and labor-management relations.
In Pennsylvania v. Nelson, 350 U.S. 497, 76 S. Ct. 477, 100 L. Ed. 640 (1956), the SupremeCourt developed criteria for assessing whether federal law preempts state action when Congresshas not specifically stated its intent. These criteria include whether the scheme of federalregulations is "so pervasive as to make the inference that Congress left no room for the Statesto supplement it," whether the federal interest "is so dominant that the federal system [must] beassumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject," or whether theenforcement of a state law "presents a serious danger of conflict with the administration of thefederal program."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...premacy+Clause

Two issues arise when State Action is in apparent conflict with federal law. The first is whether the congressional action falls within the powers granted to Congress. If Congress exceeded its authority, the congressional act is invalid and, despite the Supremacy Clause, has no priority over state action. The second issue is whether Congress intended its policy to supersede state policy. Congress often acts without intent to preempt state policy making or with an intent to preempt state policy on a limited set of issues. Congress may intend state and federal policies to coexist.

Congress wasn't granted the power to begin with.

Congress has no national interest to serve here.

Congress has failed to achieve its own misguided mission under its federal marijuana laws.

The Supremacy Clause must have a need for uniformity to even apply here and there is nothing about the sale and use of pot that requires "uniformity".

Furthermore, Americans are mostly just sick and tired of the baseless criminality and suffering federal anti-drug laws cause, especially when it comes to marijuana. There is no good served by them. Americans don't need the federal government trying to mold Americans into their version of what is good for them or not. Such efforts under the existing laws have failed completely to achieve any positive good for any American. It hasn't stopped the trade, it's robbed our economy of trillions of dollars, incarcerated millions and millions of Americans leaving them poor and unemployable with felony records, it's created a criminal drug enterprise that terrorizes neighborhoods with gangs, territories and horrible violence. There's just no upside to these laws, it's all a misguided cruel authoritarian carnage against our society and people.

After over 40 years of this ramped up War on Drugs, the only beneficiaries are the foreign drug cartels behind it to begin with. The drug cartels have played on the of these "do-gooders" to keep a trade illegal so they control the business and suck trillions of dollars out of the US economy, hundreds of billions a year.

Legalize the whole business, especially marijuana, regulate it, educate the people on the risks, tax it under the FairTax to pay for it and provide free rehab for anyone who wants or needs it, all paid for by drug users themselves from the FairTaxes they pay on the purchases of the drugs they buy.

Originally Posted by Judy

Congress wasn't granted the power to begin with.

Congress has no national interest to serve here.

Congress has failed to achieve its own misguided mission under its federal marijuana laws.

The Supremacy Clause must have a need for uniformity to even apply here and there is nothing about the sale and use of pot that requires "uniformity".

Furthermore, Americans are mostly just sick and tired of the baseless criminality and suffering federal anti-drug laws cause, especially when it comes to marijuana. There is no good served by them. Americans don't need the federal government trying to mold Americans into their version of what is good for them or not. Such efforts under the existing laws have failed completely to achieve any positive good for any American. It hasn't stopped the trade, it's robbed our economy of trillions of dollars, incarcerated millions and millions of Americans leaving them poor and unemployable with felony records, it's created a criminal drug enterprise that terrorizes neighborhoods with gangs, territories and horrible violence. There's just no upside to these laws, it's all a misguided cruel authoritarian carnage against our society and people.

After over 40 years of this ramped up War on Drugs, the only beneficiaries are the foreign drug cartels behind it to begin with. The drug cartels have played on the of these "do-gooders" to keep a trade illegal so they control the business and suck trillions of dollars out of the US economy, hundreds of billions a year.

Legalize the whole business, especially marijuana, regulate it, educate the people on the risks, tax it under the FairTax to pay for it and provide free rehab for anyone who wants or needs it, all paid for by drug users themselves from the FairTaxes they pay on the purchases of the drugs they buy.

All I'm reading here is misinterpretation, speculation, and personal opinions. However, thanks for your input.

Yes, I know, you see through the lenses of those with the authoritarian disease on behalf of the "children". There's a time and a place for that and pot and bathrooms are not the place for it. On the pot, it's time for a poll to see how Americans in general view pot legalization, so one is coming soon on a thread near you!

Originally Posted by Judy

Yes, I know, you see through the lenses of those with the authoritarian disease on behalf of the "children". There's a time and a place for that and pot and bathrooms are not the place for it. On the pot, it's time for a poll to see how Americans in general view pot legalization, so one is coming soon on a thread near you!

Yep, Trump's election is proof of how valid the polls seem to be these days. Besides that, a majority poll doesn't necessarily mean something is good for our country or its citizenry.

For example (excerpt):

According to a PRRI/RNS survey from June 2015, 73 percent of Americans support DAPA. There is a clear majority of support in both political parties: 65 percent of Republicans and 79 percent of Democrats.

Similarly, 66 percent of Americans support the DREAM Act, which would allow undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children to gain legal status by joining the military or going to college. The DREAM Act has so far failed to pass Congress.

Similar numbers support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

https://sojo.net/articles/supreme-co...ration-actions

Just saying .....