I will post again my rundown of the law, which I believe the federal government (not surprisingly) chooses not to follow.
Referring to the U.S. Constitution, Marbury vs Madison, and also the recent supreme court case Gonzales vs Raich.
As we all know President Nixon created the DEA and the Controlled Substance Act (CSA) of 1970. It is this law which the federal government claims gives federal jurisdiction and authority to the DEA & DOJ on this matter. It is the interstate commerce clause (ICC) which the federal government claims gives the CSA constitutional authority.
As we all know, the Tenth Amendment of the constitution expressly restricts federal authority to what is enumerated within the constitution with all else being reserved to the states or to the individual. This is where Marbury vs Madison comes into play here. Within Marbury vs Madison the supreme court makes it clear that legislative *ACTS* are subordinate to the constitution, thus, making any legislative act contrary to the constitution null & void.
This of course is why when our country first had federal laws prohibiting the consumption of an intoxicant (in this case alcohol) the government got a constitutional amendment. Obviously of course because the wording in the tenth amendment makes it clear that all powers of the federal government are derived by what is enumerated in the constitution. If no constitutional enumeration, then, it is a state matter.
However, this is not the reality of today. Instead of getting a constitutional amendment (just like with alcohol prohibition) in order to have constitutional federal jurisdiction. Instead this time the federal government seeks to circumvent the constitution by making the erroneous claim the CSA derives its constitutional authority from the ICC within the constitution, which, of course, gives authority to congress to regulate interstate commerce.
But when we examine the supreme court case of Gonzales vs Raich we can see just how erroneous and absurd the federal government's claim is.
Here's an excerpt from Gonzales vs Raich so people can see in black & white just how absurd the federal government's claim is when claiming the ICC grants the federal government and the CSA jurisdiction..
Gonzales v. Raich
(b) Congress’ power to regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic “class of activities” that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce is firmly established. See, e.g., Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146, 151. If Congress decides that the “ ‘total incidence’ ” of a practice poses a threat to a national market, it may regulate the entire class. See, e.g., id., at 154—155.
Of particular relevance here is Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 127—128, where, in rejecting the appellee farmer’s contention that Congress’ admitted power to regulate the production of wheat for commerce did not authorize federal regulation of wheat production intended wholly for the appellee’s own consumption, the Court established that Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself “commercial,” i.e., not produced for sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity.
The similarities between this case and Wickard are striking. In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress’ commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity.
In assessing the scope of Congress’ Commerce Clause authority, the Court need not determine whether respondents’ activities, taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce in fact, but only whether a “rational basis” exists for so concluding. E.g., Lopez, 514 U.S., at 557. Given the enforcement difficulties that attend distinguishing between marijuana cultivated locally and marijuana grown elsewhere, 21 U.S.C. § 801(5), and concerns about diversion into illicit channels, the Court has no difficulty concluding that Congress had a rational basis for believing that failure to regulate the intrastate manufacture and possession of marijuana would leave a gaping hole in the CSA (Controlled Substance Act).
- "Substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity." Whaaaa???
- "Diversions into illicit channels" Wtf???
"Diversions". Let us be clear here, diversions *FROM* what? Because if one of the two basis for your argument is concern over a product being diverted into "illicit" (illegal) channels, then, by default you are acknowledging a non illicit (legal) market for that product because if you consider all markets for that product to be illegal in the first place, then, using the term "diversion into illicit channels" is completely not germane. Instead its completely contradictory.
The other of the two arguments the court is making, expressing concern over having "substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity" is also equally making the point of a legal national marijuana market.
So you see the language in this case is a clear indication of the government shoveling bullshit to the public. Their argument is completely contradictory. On one hand this case cites marijuana as being an illegal substance. But on the other hand it refers to both illicit and non illicit markets for marijuana to make the two complaints that 1) home growing it for only personal use still affects the interstate market for it, i.e. the legal market for it. Legal market? 2) that home growing it for only personal use runs the problem of not knowing if any of it is making its way into the illicit market. Which in of itself also implies a non illicit market for it. Again, a legal market? Really?
As you can see the language the supreme court chose to use in an attempt to dance around the constitution forces them to infer the existence of a legal market for something while at the same time they're exclaiming it to be illegal. This is a classic example of what happens when bullshit attempts to subvert the constitution. What comes out is contradictions and subversive bullshit!
So the way I see it with respect to the constitution's tenth amendment, Marbury vs Madison, Gonzales vs Raich and the legal history behind alcohol prohibition. The federal government's claim is complete bullshit, and, according strictly to the law it is a matter solely belonging to the states.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
