Marijuana, Prohibition and the Tenth Amendment

[User]

One thing that strikes me as particularly outdated is all of the rhetoric I still see in emails and on websites labeling some as ‘Conservatives’ and others as ‘Liberals’. It seems to me that a so-called conservative who opposes state sovereignty is just as much aligned with the Federal Government as the most passionate Obama supporter. Conversely, a Democrat who takes a strong stand in support of state sovereignty and the 10th deserves to be met with praise by Tenthers.

Long have the labels of partisan politics succeeded in dividing the full and massive force of a people scorned. I want to submit to each and every one in the Tenth movement that if you do the difficult thing and welcome the ‘other side’ you are helping to assemble a Left-Right coalition that cannot be stopped.

I urge all who desire a repulsion of the Federal Government’s grasp to see our people not as Left and Right, or even center but rather as those for or against centralization.

It’s time to stop judging by labels. Give your so called opponent an opportunity to stand behind the 10th amendment and if they do, welcome them to the movement.

Those who’ve previously stood with the Republican party have been the quickest to support the 10th, partially due to a Corporate Media assault that frames sovereignty as a right-wing movement. Sovereignty is NOT a right-wing position, any more than the philosophies of the Neo-Conservatives, whose origins can be traced to Democrat Scoop Jackson. Sovereignty is not a left-wing position, despite the strong backing of the Medical Marijuana legalizers at NORML.

Sovereignty is a FREEDOM issue and in the end, freedom and liberty are the goals of most average people, even the ‘Libs’.


NewsHawk: User: http://www.420magazine.com/
Source: Tenth Amendment Center
Author: Bryce Shonka
Copyright: 2009 Tenth Amendment Center
Contact: Tenth Amendment Center| Contact
Website: Time to Put Down the Labels|Tenth Amendment Center Blog

[User]

Marijuana, Prohibition and the Tenth Amendment
By Susan Shelley

Sooner or later the question will have to be asked: Does the federal government have the power under the Constitution to stop cities and states from legalizing marijuana?

The answer may be no.

Federal law bans the possession of marijuana. But if a simple federal law can ban marijuana, why did Prohibition of alcohol require a constitutional amendment?

A little history answers that question. The U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1789 to provide a framework for governing a nation composed of thirteen separate, sovereign states, each with its own state constitution and government. This was a new concept known as federalism.

James Madison explained that the federal government would have only the powers delegated to it by the Constitution. Those powers would be "few and defined," he said, while the powers remaining in the state governments would be "numerous and indefinite."

The states remained suspicious that the new federal government would encroach on their powers. They demanded and got ten amendments to the Constitution that specifically banned Congress from passing laws on matters that were understood to be within state control. The Tenth Amendment flatly declared, "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."

In 1919, the United States enacted a national ban on the manufacture, sale or transportation of intoxicating liquors. Because the Constitution did not give the federal government the power to regulate alcohol, Prohibition required a constitutional amendment, which was approved by two-thirds of the House and two-thirds of the Senate, then ratified by the legislatures of three-quarters of the states.

In 1933, the nation reconsidered. A constitutional amendment repealing Prohibition was approved by two-thirds of the House and two-thirds of the Senate, then ratified by the legislatures of three-quarters of the states.

Why did the country go to all that trouble if Congress could simply have declared alcohol a "controlled substance" and made it legal or illegal with a simple majority vote and a presidential signature?

If marijuana is grown, distributed and consumed within state borders, and the state government decides that under some circumstances that is not a crime, by what authority does Congress override that judgment? Why is marijuana in 2003 different than alcohol in 1919?

The Supreme Court ruled recently that the federal Controlled Substances Act does not contain an exception for medical necessity. Lawyers for the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative argued that, exception or no exception, the Controlled Substances Act "exceeds Congress' Commerce Clause powers" and infringes the "fundamental liberties of the people under the Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments."

The Supreme Court did not want to talk about it.

"Because the Court of Appeals did not address these claims," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, "we decline to do so in the first instance."

The Court may not be able to duck the issue much longer. If the people of each state choose to decriminalize marijuana in some circumstances, the Constitution plainly reserves to them the power to do so.


NewsHawk: User: http://www.420magazine.com/
Source: extremeink.com
Author: Susan Shelley
Copyright: 2009 extremeink.com
Contact: http://www.extremeink.com
Website: http://www.extremeink.com/susan/prohibit.htm