3 ms·
This is not terribly surprising. For good or for ill, recreational marijuana use never ceased to be illegal under federal law. And despite the various states pa
by korethr 10y ago
This is not terribly surprising. For good or for ill, recreational marijuana use never ceased to be illegal under federal law. And despite the various states passing laws legalizing it, there was that pesky little Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution.
It's been kinda annoying that people seemed to forget or ignore that. Hoping that the fed won't enforce a law was always risky. As we've recently seen, the political climate can shift suddenly and severely. And now people who think a law is a Good Thing that should be enforced have the power to do so.
- zeveb 10y agoThe Supremacy Clause is immaterial, because while — yes — federal law overrules state law, that only matters if the law itself is constitutional. The Congress has no authority to ban marijuana from intrastate trade: that power is simply not given to it anywhere.
- korethr 10y agoThe Supreme court decided that the Fed could regular intrastate commerce in Wickard v. Filburn, and that ruling has also been used since to go after marijuana that stayed intrastate. [1] I think it's a bullshit interpretation of the text of the Constitution too, but that doesn't change the current legal landscape, however much I or anyone else might want it to. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn#Subsequent_developments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn#Subsequent_...
- foo2 10y agoPolice power was something meant for the states, not the Federal. Excesses like this are a good reason to advocate for originalists to SCOTUS. Thankfully, United States v. Lopez (1995) started to reverse things a little.
- TenOhms 10y agoThey said the same thing about Obamacare.