4 ms·

So, Republicans go crazy over Roe v. Wade and the supreme court decision on gay marriage, citing 'activist' judges going against the will of the people. Now, re

So, Republicans go crazy over Roe v. Wade and the supreme court decision on gay marriage, citing 'activist' judges going against the will of the people. Now, recreational marijuana has been put to the people, and in those states where the majority approved, Republicans want the feds to come in and enforce prohibition. What happened to the party of small government and states' rights? The hypocrisy really never ends with the Republican party.

asdlfkjaklf 10y ago
Clarence Thomas would agree with you. Hopefully Neil Gorsuch will be in his mold: "Justice Thomas also wrote a separate dissent, stating in part: Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything—and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers. Respondent's local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not "Commerce... among the several States." [...] Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that "commerce" included the mere possession of a good or some personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana. [...] If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article I powers – as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause – have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to "appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce." [...] If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined", while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite."[12]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
- skadamou 10y ago
  I have often wondered about the legal basis for the prohibition on cannabis. I always assumed it must be the interstate commerce clause but I could never make out why we needed an amendment to outlaw alcohol.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > I could never make out why we needed an amendment to outlaw alcohol. We didn't. We needed an amendment to ban alcohol in a way which could not be undone without a subsequent Amendment; the 18th Amendment banned alcohol itself, it didn't grant Congress discretion to do so.
    - unprepare 10y ago
      iirc, we largely ended prohibition because it was giving massive profits to organized crime a bit ironic now when we have a president railing against mexican cartels and promoting prohibition of marijuana. those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it and all that...
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Clarence Thomas would agree with you. Hopefully Neil Gorsuch will be in his mold Raich was 6-3, Gorsuch voting with Thomas rather than the way Scalia did gets you to losing 5-4.
panzagl 10y ago
And oddly enough Democrats support states' rights when it comes to marijuana, but don't trust the states on abortion or health care.
metaphorm 10y ago
There is a certain type of Republican that simply doesn't have principles. They have tribal loyalties, prejudices, and resentments. They are only interested in passing laws that benefit "our people" and laws that punish "those people".
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

asdlfkjaklf 10y ago

Clarence Thomas would agree with you. Hopefully Neil Gorsuch will be in his mold: "Justice Thomas also wrote a separate dissent, stating in part: Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything—and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers. Respondent's local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not "Commerce... among the several States." [...] Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that "commerce" included the mere possession of a good or some personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana. [...] If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article I powers – as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause – have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to "appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce." [...] If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined", while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite."[12]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

skadamou 10y ago
I have often wondered about the legal basis for the prohibition on cannabis. I always assumed it must be the interstate commerce clause but I could never make out why we needed an amendment to outlaw alcohol.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > I could never make out why we needed an amendment to outlaw alcohol. We didn't. We needed an amendment to ban alcohol in a way which could not be undone without a subsequent Amendment; the 18th Amendment banned alcohol itself, it didn't grant Congress discretion to do so.
  - unprepare 10y ago
    iirc, we largely ended prohibition because it was giving massive profits to organized crime a bit ironic now when we have a president railing against mexican cartels and promoting prohibition of marijuana. those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it and all that...
dragonwriter 10y ago
> Clarence Thomas would agree with you. Hopefully Neil Gorsuch will be in his mold Raich was 6-3, Gorsuch voting with Thomas rather than the way Scalia did gets you to losing 5-4.

panzagl 10y ago

And oddly enough Democrats support states' rights when it comes to marijuana, but don't trust the states on abortion or health care.

metaphorm 10y ago

There is a certain type of Republican that simply doesn't have principles. They have tribal loyalties, prejudices, and resentments. They are only interested in passing laws that benefit "our people" and laws that punish "those people".

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]