3 ms·
Congress doesn't have the authority to legislate on marijuana if it's grown, harvested, sold, and consumed/used all in the same state as the interstate commerce
by mikece 5y ago
Congress doesn't have the authority to legislate on marijuana if it's grown, harvested, sold, and consumed/used all in the same state as the interstate commerce clause cannot be used. In California, several county sheriffs had publicly said that they would arrest DEA agents if they tried to enforce federal law in California. Historical precedent for this practice dates back to shorty before the civil war where the Milwaukee Sheriff arrested two US Marshall agents for kidnapping because they were trying to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. This particular sheriff is flat-out committing theft and abusing his authority; he needs to go to jail for a very long time.
- r2_pilot 5y agoAu contraire(and I don't agree with this reasoning), Congress granted itself this regulatory power because "if it's grown, harvested, sold, and consumed/used all in the same state", that affects other state commerce (since demand would be affected by the lack of import of product), and thus can be regulated via the commerce clause.
- sterlind 5y agoGonzales vs. Raich held that the Commerce Clause lets Congress prohibit intrastate marijuana production. It's a messed up decision, but it's precedent now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
- klipt 5y agoIf a non-US citizen consumes marijuana even in a "legal" state that makes them deportable and perpetually inadmissible to the US. It's very much illegal at the federal level.
- mikece 5y agoUnder a law that is in violation of the Enumerated Powers and Tenth Amendment. Federal Law only supersedes state or local law where the Constitution stipulates that it does.
- beerandt 5y agoI'm all for that, but that means a lot of other federal laws and regulations getting wiped from the books. Which I think is a good thing, but many arguing this angle for marijuana legalization haven't fully considered the implications. Nevertheless, it's not the current law as far as the courts are concerned, despite what the 10th amendment says. (I suspect the current SCOTUS wouldn't mind rectifying that, given the proper cases and opportunity.) But in the current political climate, try saying the words "state's rights" without getting labeled a racist or extremist or anti-masker/vaxxer.