BASS BARN banner

1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,020 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
See Justice Department to crack down on legal marijuana with roll back of Obama policy


”WASHINGTON – As part of a crackdown on legal marijuana, the Justice Department is set to roll back an Obama administration policy to not challenge state laws that allow people to use pot for medical and recreational uses an official familiar with matter said Thursday.”


I don’t know what our current Justice Department has in mind with regard to cracking down on legal marijuana. But I do know our Federal government has absolutely no constitutionally authorized power to prosecute citizens within a state who may be engaged in the manufacture, sale or transportation of marijuana within their State’s borders.


How do I know this to be true? Prior to the adoption of the 18th Amendment, our federal government had no authority to enter a state and prosecute the people therein for the manufacture, sale and transportation of intoxicating liquors. Their hands were tied by our Constitution. After the adoption of the 18th Amendment Eliot Ness became the first federal agent, and acting under our Constitution, to enter a state and arrest those engaged in the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors. With the adoption of the 18th Amendment our federal government and the several states had concurrent power to enforce prohibition and prosecute those engaged in the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors.



But this power granted to our federal government was later withdrawn by the 21st Amendment in the following words:


”The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.”


And thus, our federal governments’ power over intoxicating liquors within a state’s borders evaporated with the repeal of the 18th Amendment and adoption of the 21st Amendment!


In addition, the authority of the various states to once again exercise and assume sovereign control over their own internal affairs and regulate intoxicating liquors, as the people in each state feel is in their own states best interests was intentionally taken back, and in crystal clear language, by section two of the 21st Amendment which reads:


”The transportation or importation into any State, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.”


So, the only federal authority over marijuana which is constitutionally based would be over the people of one state transporting it into another state without the receiving state’s consent for its sale or use.


One final note. I fully support our federal government using its constitutionally authorized powers to prosecute and severely punish all those who would dare to transport their intoxicating substances into a state for sale or distribution without that state’s permission. And when I say “severely punish”, the minimum jail time ought to be at least five years! We need to re-establish federalism, our Constitution’s plan, and strictly observe the defined and limited powers granted to our federal government. The people of the various United States need to take back their country and enforce their written constitution and its documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text!


If Jeff Sessions wants to do something useful, then prosecute the Mayors of sanctuary cities and the Governor of California for harboring illegal entrants.


JWK


"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law [1858]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
301 Posts
The 18th amendment uses the words 'intoxicating liquors' which marijuana is not. The repealing of the 18th amendment has nothing to do with the distribution marijuana.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,020 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
The 18th amendment uses the words 'intoxicating liquors' which marijuana is not. The repealing of the 18th amendment has nothing to do with the distribution marijuana.

Correct. But the fact is, my example confirms that our federal government has no constitutionally assigned authority to enter a state and meddle in the internal affaires of a state unless the Constitution provides otherwise, as was the case with intoxicating liquors and a power delegated to Congress by the 18th Amendment.

So, what is your point? Are you suggesting our federal government has been delegated a power to enter the various United States an arbitrarily regulate what it pleases?


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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,662 Posts
john

The 10th amendment does not apply. Congress has the power to pass federal law and the DOJ enforces it plain and simple.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,020 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
john

The 10th amendment does not apply. Congress has the power to pass federal law and the DOJ enforces it plain and simple.

Yes! Congress has power to pass federal law. But it has no power to assume authority over a subject matter not granted by our Constitution. What is your point?


JWK
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,174 Posts
At a time when so many Americans already hate the police, I seriously question the logic of restarting a war on the people that says the police declare them the enemy. Especially considering a majority of American's support the legalization of marijuana.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
7,213 Posts
At a time when so many Americans already hate the police, I seriously question the logic of restarting a war on the people that says the police declare them the enemy. Especially considering a majority of American's support the legalization of marijuana.
Makes you wonder, so follow the money- It will lead to a swamp filled with mostly democrats.

Can the feds make the police, either state or local, enforce federal law ?

& I don't think "so many" Americans hate the police. How do you determine this ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,174 Posts
Makes you wonder, so follow the money- It will lead to a swamp filled with mostly democrats.

Can the feds make the police, either state or local, enforce federal law ?

& I don't think "so many" Americans hate the police. How do you determine this ?
The money will lead to a swamp full of prison guard unions, police unions, the pharmaceutical industry, and companies that manufacture alcohol.

Go read what people are saying on national web sites. There is a lot of outrage directed toward the police right now from all different groups of people. Maybe hate is too strong of a word though. Certainly many people don't trust the police right now. At any rate, my original point stands. Declaring war on something over half of America supports doesn't make sense to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Don Friel

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,662 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,020 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
John

No matter how you interpret the Constitution on this issue, Congress made it Federal Law. Federal Law supersedes State Law, hence needs to be enforced by the DOJ until Congress fix's it.

Here is an interesting read from 2015. It is the supremacy clause and unfortunately it will take Congress to fix it.

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/interest-picks-up-in-legal-marijuana-as-constitutional-issue/

Congress does not have authority granted by the Constitution to assume power over a subject matter not granted. Our federal government is one of defined and limited powers.



I suggest you read MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) in which Chief Justice Marshall wrote:



"The government of the United States is of the latter description. 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 anytime, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void." _ Chief Justice Marshall, MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137(1803)


JWK




The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it.
_____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL,290 U.S. 398 (1934)


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
76,242 Posts
At a time when so many Americans already hate the police, I seriously question the logic of restarting a war on the people that says the police declare them the enemy. Especially considering a majority of American's support the legalization of marijuana.
You should try to find new friends. Your state of mind seems to be focus on oppression at all levels.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,662 Posts
John

I have no skin in this game and you and I could argue the Constitution all day. However, as I understand Marbury vs Madison, at the end of the day it is about Judicial review. Given that, I would think the Supreme Court would have to rule that this law as passed by Congress is Unconstitutional. So to get that point someone would have to challengethe Federal law and take it to the Supreme Court.

Now since I am not a Constitutional Lawyer, and if I put 10 of them in a room and asked each one for their opinion, I probably would get 10 different answers so neither one of us can guarantee what the courts would rule.

Until there is a ruling, the DOJ has every right to try and enforce it.

Now with Immigration for example, the Constitution is quite clear and does not pass Immigration Authority to the States so this is a Federally enforced law and quite clear. This can not be reversed by a court and only by amendment.

What Trump and the DOJ are doing is, telling Congress and the States, you want this fixed, then either change the law through Congress or take it to court. He is trying to fix the footballs that the prior clown kept kicking down the road rather than dictating executive orders that the next guy can change again. That is what keeps on getting us into these mess's.

That is part of what checks and balances is about.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,665 Posts
I equate people that take a hardline position against marijuana to people who take a hardline stance against gays, guilty conscience. I personally don’t partake in either, but couldn’t care less. There are so many more Obama policies that need to be repealed, not sure why weed is such a high priority.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,020 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Now since I am not a Constitutional Lawyer, and if I put 10 of them in a room and asked each one for their opinion, I probably would get 10 different answers so neither one of us can guarantee what the courts would rule.
That is because they no longer follow the rules of constitutional construction, the most fundamental one being is to adhere to the documented legislative intent of those who framed and ratified our Constitution.

JWK




The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it.
_____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL,290 U.S. 398 (1934)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,662 Posts
I equate people that take a hardline position against marijuana to people who take a hardline stance against gays, guilty conscience. I personally don’t partake in either, but couldn’t care less. There are so many more Obama policies that need to be repealed, not sure why weed is such a high priority.

Because the law is the law and you should not pick and choose the ones you will and will not enforce. You either enforce them all or you enforce none of them.

The idea here is for Congress to fix it rather than stand up there and rant and rave about how wrong it is to enforce the law. They made the dam law, so if you don't like it fix it. It is that simple.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,020 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
Because the law is the law and you should not pick and choose the ones you will and will not enforce. You either enforce them all or you enforce none of them.

The idea here is for Congress to fix it rather than stand up there and rant and rave about how wrong it is to enforce the law. They made the dam law, so if you don't like it fix it. It is that simple.

Let us not forget that only those laws which are made in pursuance of our Constitution are legitimate law and are expected to be followed. Laws made beyond the powers granted to Congress are null and void, and unenforceable under our constitutionally limited system of government.


JWK

"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,662 Posts
John

The DOJ is only enforcing Federal Law. Unfortunately once made it is the law and enforceable until it is tested in court. It is not unconstitutional until the courts say so.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,020 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
John

The DOJ is only enforcing Federal Law. Unfortunately once made it is the law and enforceable until it is tested in court. It is not unconstitutional until the courts say so.
Our Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

JWK
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top