Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

President Obama has the right to access Medical Marijuana

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
atheistprogress Donating Member (18 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-07-11 02:56 PM
Original message
President Obama has the right to access Medical Marijuana
Edited on Wed Sep-07-11 03:15 PM by atheistprogress
President Obama lives at 1600 pennsylvania ave, within the district of colombia. Im not saying he uses that right, only that he legally could.

DC residents took a vote in 1998 and specified that they wanted the right to access Medical Marijuana. It became the law of the land in may 2010, after being held from approval for 12 years.


It was first an act which could not become law without Congressional approval. For any one who hasn't read our constitution, no DC act can become a law if either of the Federal Congresses objects.

Article one section 8. The congress has the authority to "exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district..."

Therefore the federal legislature has given tacit approval of the right to access medical marijuana. They have in effect legitimized a separate right, the right to access medical marijuana, a right related to the control of dangerous substances, but still separate. Keep in mind that although the drug Cocaine is schedule II, no state has authored medicinal cocaine rights. Seventeen states have medical marijuana laws.

Our constitution was written in such a way so as to limit the authority of the government, and grant legal protections for civil liberties of the people. Amendment 9, the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Griswold V. Connecticut
"In a long series of cases this Court has held that where fundamental personal liberties are involved, they may not be abridged by the States simply on a showing that a regulatory statute has some rational relationship to the effectuation of a proper state purpose" "The law must be shown "necessary, and not merely rationally related, to the accomplishment of a permissible state policy.""

Well since it was unnecessary to deny DC citizens the right to access medical marijuana, WHY IS IT STILL NECESSARY TO DENY THIS RIGHT TO OTHER US CITIZENS?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC