State Politics & The War On Drugs: USSC A Solution?

[Silhouette]

In the commerce clause does it talk about states exporting federally-controlled substances to other states where they are not wanted?

Can you cite the power to Prohibit, in our Constitution?

OK, let's parse it out.
Commerce Clause

The Commerce Clause refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.”.....The Constitution enumerates certain powers for the federal government. The Tenth Amendment provides that any powers that are not delegated to Congress by the Constitution are reserved for the states. Congress has often used the Commerce Clause to justify exercising legislative power over the activities of states and their citizens, leading to significant and ongoing controversy regarding the balance of power between the federal government and the states........The Commerce Clause has historically been viewed as both a grant of congressional authority and as a restriction on the regulatory authority of the States. The “dormant” Commerce Clause refers to the prohibition, implicit in the Commerce Clause, against states passing legislation that discriminates against or excessively burdens interstate commerce.

Long story short, the Commerce Clause acts with the 10th Amendment in a push and pull of debate on what constitutes states' rights and federal dominance to regulate commerce.

So as with any debate, one has to go back to the intent of the authors of said clauses to parse out what the law means today. I suspect and would argue that the original authors of the commerce clause wanted to regulate commerce as a form of perserving the delicate balance of the Union. In fact it could be said that the founding fathers wisely wrote limited federal powers to only address such situations where overweening states must be curbed in order to protect and preserve the stability and longevity of the Union as a whole.

Allowing one state to overproduce an intoxicating substance that always finds its way into the hands of children of other states would be a direct and provable threat to such stability. Therefore, the FDA is a viable and dominant unit over states when it comes to controlled intoxicating substances. An intoxicated Union is a vulnerable Union. The 10th Amendment would not provide a weighty enough argument for California's illegal drug trade it's currently involved with.

Can you cite the power to Prohibit, in our Constitution?

I just did. If the fed can and should regulate commerce with respect to mind-altering substances being sold between states and within their borders, then obvious in that implication is the power to prohibit sale of this or that good that might act to destabilize the Union. If you believe the fed should have powers to regulate commerce in order to preserve the Union. And that, I believe, is why they ratified that power: to preserve the Union. It can be argued that the founding fathers granted very little unilateral power to the fed and only then when necessary to clip the wings of overweening states that might threaten the others.

I'd say California selling drugs to New York where in both states they are illegal (federally regulated as prohibited commerce), is one state overweening to the detriment of the Union. And this is the case I would frame in general for NY against CA with respect to CA producing an illegal substance in quantities that cannot possibly be consumed by her populace, to the detriment of others states as a whole in the Union. NY being one of those states with proof that said illegal substance made its way from CA across their borders.

If the Commerce Clause doesn't cover that, it doesn't cover anything between states. It's a free for all.

 

[danielpalos]

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Can you cite Any power to Prohibit in our Constitution?

 

[Silhouette]

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Can you cite Any power to Prohibit in our Constitution?

I can cite an argument to prohibit. You're being a willful idiot here. It's like you're saying "yes water exists, but can you prove that it's wet?". The power to regulate commerce OBVIOUSLY comes with the power to either allow or prohibit it. What else would "regulate" mean to you? Mere suggestion? Or the rights to set hard rules and enforce them, including prohibition?

Stop being so willfully abstruse.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Not exactly safe

Is Marijuana Safe?

 

[hazlnut]

Should New York sue California in the USSC for this?

Read here first: 10 busts in massive California-New York pot ring

If the State of New York could prove that California is over-producing pot, demonstrating an intent to export, it might have legal action against CA in the USSC. Pot is federally illegal for a reason. Just like heroin is. And as I recall they're both on the same schedule. Let's assume that say Oklahoma wanted to make heroin legal in order to boost their economy since "hey everyone is doing it anyway, legalization is inevitable" (same rationale in CA used to defy federal statutes). So would we be OK with Oklahoma overproducing heroin for presumed export to other states so their state could get rich on the blood and demise of children (and adults) in other states?

I'd think we'd have a problem with Oklahoma doing that. So California would have to canvass its population to demonstrate the need for internal consumption for pot vs the production within its borders. If the production far exceeds its own consumption, a legal assumption can be made that it intends to export; which is a violation of several severe federal statutes.

NY suing CA would force an end to CA's overweening influence on the rest of the nation. A thing she readily takes for granted and even celebrates. The CA debauchery lifestyle has bled over into assumption-by-force into other states via other USSC cases induced by clever legal posturing and appeals within the CA borders on up. So how about it? You want to stop massive drugs coming across the border with Mexico. Meanwhile the DEA sits idly while CA exports massive drugs across the nation to its collective demise.

Do other states have to be forced to assume or bear the impact of CA's values by virtue of her own (illegal) internal policies and statutes? By the way, the "legal weed" laws in CA were not even allowed to be on the ballot there because in order to get things on the ballot there, they can't be proposals that violate federal laws. There's another point of contention at the USSC level. The state legislators had a mandate to disallow those proposals on their ballot. So I think you can find defendants if forced to pick individuals to sue for CA illegal controlled substance/drug export program.

CA Constitution Article II, Section 8: Codes Display Text

(a) The initiative is the power of the electors to propose statutes and amendments to the Constitution and to adopt or reject them.

(b) An initiative measure may be proposed by presenting to the Secretary of State a petition that sets forth the text of the proposed statute or amendment to the Constitution and is certified to have been signed by electors equal in number to 5 percent in the case of a statute, and 8 percent in the case of an amendment to the Constitution, of the votes for all candidates for Governor at the last gubernatorial election.

(c) The Secretary of State shall then submit the measure at the next general election held at least 131 days after it qualifies or at any special statewide election held prior to that general election. The Governor may call a special statewide election for the measure.

And Section 10:

(a) An initiative statute or referendum approved by a majority of votes thereon takes effect the day after the election unless the measure provides otherwise. If a referendum petition is filed against a part of a statute the remainder shall not be delayed from going into effect.

(b) If provisions of 2 or more measures approved at the same election conflict, those of the measure receiving the highest affirmative vote shall prevail.

(c) The Legislature may amend or repeal referendum statutes. It may amend or repeal an initiative statute by another statute that becomes effective only when approved by the electors unless the initiative statute permits amendment or repeal without their approval.

I'd say on the whole, defiance of federal law would render a statute revokable without voters' permission in CA. Is this the United States of America? Or the unilateral Republik of Kalifornia? Sue them New York. Clip the wings of that social dragon for once.

And I don't want to hear any whining from Californians saying "but pot tax base is going to save our budget woes!" #1, other states are already flooding California's chances at that. Prices nationwide are plummeting where it will cost the same as a pack of smokes. BigTobacco is going to flood the market anyway, do their subtle advertising to children; and when they run out of marketing in the states where they can grow legally, guess what they're going to lobby Congress to relax federal statutes on? Yep, the kids in YOUR state. and #2. You don't balance a state's budget woes by the blood of children and #3. Setting this precedent for a simple herb one can grow in one's backyard, that is Schedule 1 narcotic, busts open the door for opium poppy cultivation which is already starting to take off and become normalized just like pot was in the 1960s. And if you don't think that's a train wreck coming hard, just take a look around your own community.

NY should just make pot legal.

You guy buy hash cookies in Walgreens in Vegas.

WFT - pot is less harmful than booze…

 

[hazlnut]

Not exactly safe

Is Marijuana Safe?

Safer than booze or cigs.

The real stepping stone drugs are booze and cigs… both are more likely to trigger craving for harder drugs than pot.

 

[danielpalos]

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Can you cite Any power to Prohibit in our Constitution?

I can cite an argument to prohibit. You're being a willful idiot here. It's like you're saying "yes water exists, but can you prove that it's wet?". The power to regulate commerce OBVIOUSLY comes with the power to either allow or prohibit it. What else would "regulate" mean to you? Mere suggestion? Or the rights to set hard rules and enforce them, including prohibition?

Stop being so willfully abstruse.

No, you can't. The historical, legal and political precedent of nothing but Repeal of that lousy "management"; is all that should have been necessary.

To regulate Commerce is not any form of power to Prohibit commerce since Prohibition includes no regulation.

 

[Silhouette]

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Can you cite Any power to Prohibit in our Constitution?

I can cite an argument to prohibit. You're being a willful idiot here. It's like you're saying "yes water exists, but can you prove that it's wet?". The power to regulate commerce OBVIOUSLY comes with the power to either allow or prohibit it. What else would "regulate" mean to you? Mere suggestion? Or the rights to set hard rules and enforce them, including prohibition?

Stop being so willfully abstruse.

No, you can't. The historical, legal and political precedent of nothing but Repeal of that lousy "management"; is all that should have been necessary.

To regulate Commerce is not any form of power to Prohibit commerce since Prohibition includes no regulation.

You're sidestepping the word "regulate" here. Either "regulation" includes the right to set hard rules in which prohibition is implied as a consequence or it isn't. You clearly don't have a grip on the meaning of the word "regulate". It includes the right to allow or deny something.

The Commerce Clause gives the power to the fed to REGULATE commerce between states and each other and between states and foreign powers. Prohibition is the natural consequence of the fed being able to allow or prohibit trade between states and each other or states and a foreign country. If a law exists to regulate property uses, and that law says "no property owner may spill raw sewage into a stream", then the law PROHIBITS spilling sewage into a stream.

I know you understand this relationship between "regulate" and "prohibit". Yet you're pretending not to understand it to forward your argument as if the two words were wholly unrelated.

 

[danielpalos]

How much Regulation under Prohibition?

Only the right wing, never gets it.

 

[Silhouette]

No, you are purposefully not getting it

 

[Silhouette]

How much Regulation under Prohibition?

Only the right wing, never gets it.

No, the question is "How much prohibition under regulation" when talking about the Commerce Clause. Regulation implies prohibition under its umbrella of authority.

 

[danielpalos]

How much Regulation under Prohibition?

Only the right wing, never gets it.

No, the question is "How much prohibition under regulation" when talking about the Commerce Clause. Regulation implies prohibition under its umbrella of authority.

No, it doesn't. The Power delegated is, "To regulate Commerce". How much regulation goes on in the black market?

The right wing is simply condoning sloth in government, under the guise of "morals".

 

[Silhouette]

No, it doesn't. The Power delegated is, "To regulate Commerce". How much regulation goes on in the black market?

The right wing is simply condoning sloth in government, under the guise of "morals".

So when you regulate trade, according to the willful-idiot danielpalos, you aren't allowed to prohibit certain types of trade. Define "regulation" under those parameters for me daniel. Is it "the power to suggest"? Or "the power to enforce"?

 

[danielpalos]

No, it doesn't. The Power delegated is, "To regulate Commerce". How much regulation goes on in the black market?

The right wing is simply condoning sloth in government, under the guise of "morals".

So when you regulate trade, according to the willful-idiot danielpalos, you aren't allowed to prohibit certain types of trade. Define "regulation" under those parameters for me daniel. Is it "the power to suggest"? Or "the power to enforce"?

To Regulate Commerce means to enact "tape of color" as regulations.

 

[Silhouette]

To Regulate Commerce means to enact "tape of color" as regulations.

Explain in detail.

 

[danielpalos]

To Regulate Commerce means to enact "tape of color" as regulations.

Explain in detail.

To Regulate Commerce means to "make Commerce regular", not to abolish Commerce.

 

[Silhouette]

To Regulate Commerce means to enact "tape of color" as regulations.

Explain in detail.

To Regulate Commerce means to "make Commerce regular", not to abolish Commerce.

And to make Commerce regular, that means to enforce that regularity across all the states, yes? And if it's illegal in some states to produce and sell pot, heroin, etc. then all states must abide by that regularity.

To establish regularity means that those attempting to step outside that regularity are... *drum roll* PROHIBITED from doing so.

:

 

[danielpalos]

To Regulate Commerce means to enact "tape of color" as regulations.

Explain in detail.

To Regulate Commerce means to "make Commerce regular", not to abolish Commerce.

And to make Commerce regular, that means to enforce that regularity across all the states, yes? And if it's illegal in some states to produce and sell pot, heroin, etc. then all states must abide by that regularity.

To establish regularity means that those attempting to step outside that regularity are... *drum roll* PROHIBITED from doing so.

:

Can you cite a drug war clause in our Constitution of limited powers, delegated to our federal Congress?

 

[hazlnut]

Pot, cannabis, should be deregulated and sold like alcohol and tobacco.

RE: other hard drugs, meth, opiates etc. When I hear libertarians and liberals talk about how deregulating these substances would just solve the "drug war" problem -- I believe they are talking out of their ass and have no clue about chemical addiction, and the massive collateral damage that goes on with every addict.

Also, the notion of a "non-violent" drug crime is mostly b.s. too. Unless you're talking about a person who grows pot for personal use only. People don't understand the amount of violence done to the human body with the habitual use of meth and opiates. If you're selling or smuggling meth or heroin, just because you don't carry a gun, you're still involved in an extremely violent crime.

 

[danielpalos]

Legalization means, better drugs at potentially lower cost.