Author Topic: State vs. federal laws  (Read 665 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jim Nunziato

State vs. federal laws
« on: March 09, 2014, 08:27:43 AM »
The Tenth Amendment: 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.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but there is no mention of cannabis anywhere in the U.S. Constitution, and no power associated with it is granted to Congress. Therefore, according to the Tenth Amendment, any and all power associated with cannabis should be reserved to the states. (Unless, of course, it crosses state lines, at which point it becomes interstate commerce.) Two states, Colorado and Washington, have passed State Laws which legalize the possession and use of cannabis for non-medical use, even though there are still federal laws which prohibit such possession or use. As long as no part of this substance crosses state lines, i.e. if it is grown, cultivated, processed and used within the boundaries of the state, does the federal government have any right to say anything at all?

On August 28, 2013, The United States government announced that they would no longer actively pursue marijuana offenses taken place in those states that have legalized the small consumption and possession of marijuana. The Drug Enforcement Agency will only become involved if the offense involve violence or firearms, the proceeds go to gangs and cartels, or when marijuana is distributed to those states where it is illegal.

Now a few points to ponder:

Why does the federal government ignore its own Constitutional powers, (as in national border security -  article 1, section 8 of the Constitution, ...and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States... ) and at the same time, sue a State that passes its own State Law to enforce exactly what they (the federal government) should be doing (as in the state of Arizona passing its own border security laws)? 

How does the federal government on one hand, accept State Law over federal law (as in the local use of cannabis) but on the other hand, find "unconstitutional" State Laws or State Constitutions on issues where no federal laws or powers exist (as in same sex marriage or voter ID laws)?

The way I see it, the federal government shouldn't be able to choose, or have it both ways. They should enforce ALL federal laws written under powers granted to them by the Constitution, and leave the states alone to decide for themselves what best suits them within the boundaries of their own states.

Am I wrong?
"I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend."  Thomas Jefferson

If Hillary was the answer, then it must have been a really stupid question!