3 ms·

Correct, and in specific, the supremacy clause of the constitution guarantees that federal law overrules state law. I don't see any state AG's having much luck

by SEJeff 9y ago

Correct, and in specific, the supremacy clause of the constitution guarantees that federal law overrules state law. I don't see any state AG's having much luck suing the DoJ against this as it is clear as mud: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

DanBC 9y ago
> against this as it is clear as mud: Mud is opaque. The phrase "clear as mud" means "not clear at all", or "baffling". (I only point this out because there are peoplereading HN with English as a second language, and some of them are interested in idiom. I don't care how you use language, and I'm not trying to "correct" you.)
- vikascoder 9y ago
  Unless sarcasm is intended
marcoperaza 9y ago
Yep, though I do disagree with the logic of the Supreme Court case I mentioned. The federal government argued it was a legitimate exercise of Congress’s constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce. But growing weed in your backyard for personal use is clearly neither interstate, nor commerce. Alas, the commerce clause has been widely abused in many similar ways with the Supreme Court’s blessing.
wl 9y ago
That's only half the picture. There's also the 10th Amendment, which says that powers not delegated to the feds belong to the states or the people. Federal drug laws rely on the interstate commerce power, even though they also regulate conduct that is sometimes purely intrastate and/or purely non-commercial. The most natural reading of the Constitution is that the feds have no authority here. The Supreme Court disagreed in Wickard and Raich, but Wickard was poorly reasoned rationalization for political purposes and Raich does not stand except by relying on Wickard. I mean, for all practical purposes, the feds will do what they want. But if you're going to cite the text of the Constitution, the feds are breaking the law here. It takes case law to justify what they're doing, not just the text. Just a thought: Why did alcohol prohibition require a constitutional amendment but drug prohibition didn't?
- marcoperaza 9y ago
  I'm all for a faithful reading of the Constitution, and I agree that the federal government has overstepped the intended bounds, but it's ultimately irrelevant. For legal purposes, the Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is. If you want them to be more faithful to the original meaning, appoint judges who feel the same way.
- sbov 9y ago
  > Just a thought: Why did alcohol prohibition require a constitutional amendment but drug prohibition didn't? Prohibitionists wanted an amendment because at that point in time, no amendment had ever been overturned.
  - marcoperaza 9y ago
    A properly-ratified amendment cannot be overturned, unless it decreases a state's share of the votes in the Senate without its consent. There are at least two reasons prohibitionists sought an amendment: 1) The Supreme Court at the time did not take the expansive view of the Commerce Clause that it has today, so it may very well have declared a federal prohibition law unconstitutional. 2) The amendment didn't give Congress the power to ban alcohol, it banned alcohol. That meant that legalizing alcohol required another amendment. This was a huge win for the prohibitionists.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > A properly-ratified amendment cannot be overturned GP probably meant “repealed” rather than “overturned”.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Just a thought: Why did alcohol prohibition require a constitutional amendment but drug prohibition didn't? It probably didn't; the Wartime Prohibition Act was passed before the 18th Amendment was ratified and generally viewed not to require the amendment; this was never tested because by the time it went into effect, the amendment had been ratified. The Amendment made prohibition a permanent policy as long as it wasn't repealed—which at that point was unprecedented—and was considered valuable for that reason.
Clubber 9y ago
Yes, but constitutionally, does the federal government have the power to make pot illegal. They certainly didn't in the early 1900s when they first tried, thus their stamp act work around.

by SEJeff 9y ago

DanBC 9y ago

> against this as it is clear as mud: Mud is opaque. The phrase "clear as mud" means "not clear at all", or "baffling". (I only point this out because there are peoplereading HN with English as a second language, and some of them are interested in idiom. I don't care how you use language, and I'm not trying to "correct" you.)

vikascoder 9y ago
Unless sarcasm is intended

marcoperaza 9y ago

Yep, though I do disagree with the logic of the Supreme Court case I mentioned. The federal government argued it was a legitimate exercise of Congress’s constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce. But growing weed in your backyard for personal use is clearly neither interstate, nor commerce. Alas, the commerce clause has been widely abused in many similar ways with the Supreme Court’s blessing.

wl 9y ago

That's only half the picture. There's also the 10th Amendment, which says that powers not delegated to the feds belong to the states or the people. Federal drug laws rely on the interstate commerce power, even though they also regulate conduct that is sometimes purely intrastate and/or purely non-commercial. The most natural reading of the Constitution is that the feds have no authority here. The Supreme Court disagreed in Wickard and Raich, but Wickard was poorly reasoned rationalization for political purposes and Raich does not stand except by relying on Wickard. I mean, for all practical purposes, the feds will do what they want. But if you're going to cite the text of the Constitution, the feds are breaking the law here. It takes case law to justify what they're doing, not just the text. Just a thought: Why did alcohol prohibition require a constitutional amendment but drug prohibition didn't?

marcoperaza 9y ago
I'm all for a faithful reading of the Constitution, and I agree that the federal government has overstepped the intended bounds, but it's ultimately irrelevant. For legal purposes, the Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is. If you want them to be more faithful to the original meaning, appoint judges who feel the same way.
sbov 9y ago
> Just a thought: Why did alcohol prohibition require a constitutional amendment but drug prohibition didn't? Prohibitionists wanted an amendment because at that point in time, no amendment had ever been overturned.
- marcoperaza 9y ago
  A properly-ratified amendment cannot be overturned, unless it decreases a state's share of the votes in the Senate without its consent. There are at least two reasons prohibitionists sought an amendment: 1) The Supreme Court at the time did not take the expansive view of the Commerce Clause that it has today, so it may very well have declared a federal prohibition law unconstitutional. 2) The amendment didn't give Congress the power to ban alcohol, it banned alcohol. That meant that legalizing alcohol required another amendment. This was a huge win for the prohibitionists.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > A properly-ratified amendment cannot be overturned GP probably meant “repealed” rather than “overturned”.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> Just a thought: Why did alcohol prohibition require a constitutional amendment but drug prohibition didn't? It probably didn't; the Wartime Prohibition Act was passed before the 18th Amendment was ratified and generally viewed not to require the amendment; this was never tested because by the time it went into effect, the amendment had been ratified. The Amendment made prohibition a permanent policy as long as it wasn't repealed—which at that point was unprecedented—and was considered valuable for that reason.

Clubber 9y ago

Yes, but constitutionally, does the federal government have the power to make pot illegal. They certainly didn't in the early 1900s when they first tried, thus their stamp act work around.