Supremacy Clause

[The Professor]

Just posted this in another thread, but as it applies here as well, I'll repost it for your consideration.

That cannot possibly be true.

At least three states have decriminalized marijuana possession.

As marijuana is absolutely illegal under federal law, that supremacy clause must not apply in the way you believe it does.

If it did, those silly people in California wouldn't have bothered to pass laws that decriminalized and allowed legal sale of a commodity that was "banned" by federal law, right?​

Those fine folks in California were not silly. I think they acted properly in decriminalizing pot. They just had no idea that the idiots on the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) would give the government the authority to use the Commerce Clause to regulate pot which was grown and consumed locally. I cannot see how California could have foreseen such a foolish decision by the SCOTUS.

Note: see post #38 above for details of the Court's decision.

 

[Missourian]

Just posted this in another thread, but as it applies here as well, I'll repost it for your consideration.

That cannot possibly be true.

At least three states have decriminalized marijuana possession.

As marijuana is absolutely illegal under federal law, that supremacy clause must not apply in the way you believe it does.

If it did, those silly people in California wouldn't have bothered to pass laws that decriminalized and allowed legal sale of a commodity that was "banned" by federal law, right?​

Those fine folks in California were not silly. I think they acted properly in decriminalizing pot. They just had no idea that the idiots on the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) would give the government the authority to use the Commerce Clause to regulate pot which was grown and consumed locally. I cannot see how California could have foreseen such a foolish decision by the SCOTUS.

Note: see post #38 above for details of the Court's decision.

I agree, it was a terrible decision.

And what California did is exactly what Missouri and Texas are trying to do.

“Any official, agent, or employee of the federal government who enforces or attempts to enforce any act, order, law, statute, rule, or regulation of the federal government upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is owned or manufactured commercially or privately in the state of Missouri and that remains exclusively within the borders of the state of Missouri shall be guilty of a class D felony.”




Continue reading →
Missouri House Proposes Jail Time for Feds Violating the 2nd Amendment | The Gateway Pundit

 

[Clementine]

if they succeed from the Union first then it's OK.

Yeah.. tell that to the sanctuary cities

/end thread

GMTA!

California cities openly thumbed their noses at our federal laws and were applauded for it.

It's not about right and wrong or what's consitutional. It's all about what this regime likes or not. Our laws aren't guiding us, but rather the whims of an extremist. He'll respect laws that he makes, but completely ignores laws passed by people much smarter than himself.

 

[NYcarbineer]

.
Unconstitutional Texas Bill Would Make Enforcing Federal Gun Laws A Felony | NationofChange
Ian Millhiser
16 January 2013

Texas State Rep. Steve Toth (R-TX), with the apparent support of at least one of Texas’ most powerful politicians, will introduce unconstitutional legislation subjecting federal law enforcement officers to arrest and prosecution if they enforce new gun safety laws in the Lone Star State:

<snip>


Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.


Interesting -- Texas State Rep. Steve Toth (R-TX), wants to protect his view of the Constitution of the United States by introducing legislation to "undermine" the Constitution of the United States. Republicans aren't the protectors of the constitution they pretend to be.
.

Only Federal edicts and laws that are allowed to the fed are Constitutional. The States have the right to ignore Fed laws that are not powers granted to the fed by said Constitution.

No they don't.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The states that have legalized pot when it is illegal under federal law are those Constitutional?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/01/u...arijuana-shops-close.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

[NYcarbineer]

All the 10th amendment does is state the obvious,

that the states can make any laws they want so long as they're not in conflict with federal law, or constitutional law.

 

[Star]

The states that have legalized pot when it is illegal under federal law are those Constitutional?

Depends on whether or not the Fed legally has the right to effect IN STATE commerce. As long as the pot is home grown the Fed has no authority. If any of the pot is out of State that is Interstate Commerce and the Feds have the authority.

However until someone tests it at the Supreme Court. The fed claims they control all drugs everywhere no matter of Commerce.

Unfortunately, the Federal Government does have the right to regulate pot which is produced and consumed locally.

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the Commerce Clause gives Congress the right to regulate purely local activity if such activity has an affect on interstate commerce. In Gonzales v. Raich the SCOTUS decided that Congress could regulate marijuana grown by a party solely for her own private medicinal use (defendant lived in California where such use was legal). The SCOTUS ruled that Congress had regulatory authority because defendant grew her own marijuana instead of buying it on on the market, and this affected the amount of interstate traffic. The fact that such interstate traffic was illegal did not sway the SCOTUS. Here is the the rational used by the Court:

“The similarities between this case and Wickard are striking. Like the farmer in Wickard, respondents are cultivating, for home consumption, a fungible commodity for which there is an established, albeit illegal, interstate market.28 Just as the Agricultural Adjustment Act was designed “to control the volume [of wheat] moving in interstate and foreign commerce in order to avoid surpluses …” and consequently control the market price, id., at 115, a primary purpose of the CSA is to control the supply and demand of controlled substances in both lawful and unlawful drug markets. See nn. 20—21, supra.

"In Wickard, we had no difficulty concluding that Congress had a rational basis for believing that, when viewed in the aggregate, leaving home-consumed wheat outside the regulatory scheme would have a substantial influence on price and market conditions. Here too, Congress had a rational basis for concluding that leaving home-consumed marijuana outside federal control would similarly affect price and market conditions.”

As silly as it sounds, the SCOTUS has proclaimed the Commerce Clause allows the Federal Government to criminalize the growing of marijuana. Many people think they understand the Commerce Clause, but they fail to realize that the Constitution means what the SCOTUS says it means, and the Court has given Congress almost unlimited power under the Commerce Clause. The entire SCOTUS decision in the above case can be read at the following link.

GONZALES V. RAICH


I personally think the SCOTUS abandoned every know principle of law, logic and common sense in arriving at their decision, but there is no appeal from their insanity.

Funny, that the Commerce Clause was originally intended to regulate only the flow of interstate commerce, and not the things which flowed. The Law was to prevent one state from placing economic barriers to things produced in other states. Then the Commerce Clause was used to regulate those items which were part of interstate commerce. Then it was used to regulate those things which affected interstate commerce even though they were not part of that commerce. Finally, it was decided that things which were produced and consumed locally could be regulated because they impacted negatively on interstate commerce. In other words, anything that is not in interstate commerce can be regulated simply because it is not in interstate commerce.... according the Court's interpretation of the Commerce Clause.

And people wonder why I drink.

Well said The Professor, but it seems many of the Limbaugh/Beck/Hannity listeners have been so thoroughly indoctrinated that they can't even believe their own heroes. In message #27 of this thread I posted an article from Alex Jones' website saying essentially the same thing you wrote in message #38.


I think rightwing talkers have made their case(s) in such simplistic terms that righty's think citing one law or one sentence of the constitution is separate from other laws or parts of the constitution, i.e that there is a bright line between laws and parts but-----but the constitution is and always has been subject to interpretation by the SCOTUS and like "Dem Bones" each individual part has to be considered in their interpretation -- if interpreting the constitution were as easy as rightwing talkers try to make it, we wouldn't need a SCOTUS.
.