5 ms·

Taking them at face value though, they're saying they're disallowing payments here specifically because it's illegal, rather than a disinclination to be associa

Taking them at face value though, they're saying they're disallowing payments here specifically because it's illegal, rather than a disinclination to be associated with it for PR/as a value judgement: > "The federal government considers cannabis sales illegal, so these purchases are not allowed on our systems," the statement continued. I don't fully understand the US system but it feels weird to me that the power to legalise could be both devolved to the states but still federally illegal… Is it that it's illegal on an interstate level, like you can't purchase from out of state?

callalex 3y ago
“I don’t understand the US system” No, you understand the system perfectly fine. The current situation is completely dysfunctional. The federal government has absolute authority and supremacy on this matter, and has the legally uncontested ability to lock away any person involved in the production, distribution, sale, possession, and consumption of cannabis. However the people who are in charge of those federal police are fully aware of how deeply unpopular that would be, so they just turn a blind eye on a national scale and just choose not to take any action. Every now and then a random cannabis store will be raided by federal police as some kind of publicity stunt. Then the news articles and protests will flare up. Then we go back to the current situation of utter insanity. As a result of this illegal status, all banking surrounding the business is completely broken, and the entire industry runs on burly people with guns driving around duffel bags of cash, even to pay taxes to state and local governments. Please send help, our government is very broken.
- peteradio 3y ago
  All it would take is the Supreme Court to reverse another precedent. The interpretation of interstate commerce is obviously wrong.
  - labcomputer 3y ago
    > The interpretation of interstate commerce is obviously wrong. Eh... I mean, yes, but not in the way you want. The constitution is clear about the federal government having the authority to regulate interstate commerce. Running a payment processor in, say, New York for customers (businesses) in California is very clearly interstate commerce. Your NY-based business is selling a service (payment processing) to another business in California. New York and California are difference states. You are engaging in commerce across state lines. There's no consistent way to interpret "[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" in any meaningful way that still a) gives the federal government any control over interstate commerce; and b) prohibits the federal government from regulating this kind of interstate commerce. Wickard v. Filburn (which was overturned more than 25 years ago) was pretty obviously a stupid decision because there was nothing that wasn't interstate commerce under that ruling. I say it's stupid because why would the constitution give the congress the power to regulate specifically interstate commerce if it really meant they could regulate all commerce? That obvious contradiction is why it was overturned. It sounds like you're asking for a Wickard v Filburn-style decision, but in the other direction: Nothing is interstate commerce. I guess they could do that if you take the Justice Thomas approach that all the rules are made up, but then what's the point? Let's just dissolve congress and the supreme court and just have the president rule as he chooses.
    - omniglottal 3y ago
      Such a reasonable stance to end with such outright and absolute insanity... do you WANT a dictatorship??
    - eadmund 3y ago
      > if you take the Justice Thomas approach that all the rules are made up Why the out-of-nowhere attack on the judge who adheres most closely to the law and the Constitution? With respect to the matter at hand, I think that your analysis is correct: the federal government has the authority to prohibit a NY-based payment processor from processing certain payments in California. But it has no authority to prohibit that NY-based payment processor’s California-based subsidiary from processing those payments within California.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- eadmund 3y ago
  > The federal government has absolute authority and supremacy on this matter No, it really doesn’t. It has absolute authority over interstate commerce and federal property, among other powers. It has no constitutional authority to regulate intrastate commerce. It also has the power to impose excise taxes, but I think that constitutionally must imply reasonable excise taxes: i.e., it may not impose a $1 billion/quart excise tax on ethanol rather than amending the Constitution to permit federal prohibition. I can see how reasonable people might disagree with that reading, but in conjunction with the 10th Amendment I find it compelling. The Constitution is really not that complex a document. It doesn’t always say what any one of us would like it to say (and we are free to advocate for its amendment!), but it pretty clearly says what it says (most of the time … there are a few gaps, as above).
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    The entirety of the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution: >This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding There is ZERO wiggle room there. The Federal government made a law saying you can't grow weed or sell weed. States cannot undercut that. The interstate commerce nonsense has always been a distraction.
    - eadmund 3y ago
      > >This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding > There is ZERO wiggle room there. Agreed: ‘the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof.’ Those laws of the United States, which are made in pursuance of the Constitution, are 100% the supreme law of the land (as are treaties made under the authority of the United States). That same Constitution also provides, ‘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.’ So a law of the United States that is not under one of the powers delegated to the United States is … not made in pursuance of the Constitution. And there is no power to regulate intrastate commerce. So yeah, zero wiggle room: the federal government has no constitutional authority to ban growing or selling marijuana within a state.
martin8412 3y ago
It's illegal in all states of the US. Some states have decided to make it legal, but that only protects you from prosecution by the state. If you enter a federal facility or you're stopped by a federal agent, then you can still go to jail despite the states' stance on cannabis.
- fnordpiglet 3y ago
  As I understand it since the Obama first administration DOJs stance has been to not pursue cannabis crimes in any state that has legalized it (“Cole memo”) which was rescinded by Sessions, but with no follow through by prosecutors. Barr again deprioritized cannabis and Garland has gone even further. The issue for banks and financial firms is they sit at both an interstate commerce point of view, which is firmly federal, but they also exist in a highly regulated and scrutinized world. Until the law changes DOJ deprioritizing cannabis enforcement helps them not at all - they’re still facilitating a crime, and can be held to account by a later administration on the whims of the electorate and they would be clearly in violation of the law.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > As I understand it since the Obama first administration DOJs stance has been to not pursue cannabis crimes in any state that has legalized it (“Cole memo”) which was rescinded by Sessions, but with no follow through by prosecutors The Cole Memo stopped being the important bar to prosecution with the Rohrbacker-Farr Amendment erecting a statutory bar since 2014 (which DoJ initially tried to dodge hard but got slapped down by a trial court in 2015 and the Ninth Circuit in 2016, and seems to have mostly given up after that.) But that amendment is a provision of spending bills restricting prosecution, not a legalization, and could easily be dropped and expose conduct to prosecution back as far as the statute of limitations.
    - landemva 3y ago
      > could easily be dropped and expose conduct to prosecution back as far as the statute of limitations. If a law is changed, there is protection from ex-post-facto prosecution.
whelp_24 3y ago
The US Federal Government doesn't devolve powers, the States have thier own powers (the part of the constitution that says any power not reserved for the Federal is for the states). But yes, technically it is the interstate commerce provision, and various rulings that have broadened what that means. State vs Federal power is complex and still a bit disputed.

callalex 3y ago

“I don’t understand the US system” No, you understand the system perfectly fine. The current situation is completely dysfunctional. The federal government has absolute authority and supremacy on this matter, and has the legally uncontested ability to lock away any person involved in the production, distribution, sale, possession, and consumption of cannabis. However the people who are in charge of those federal police are fully aware of how deeply unpopular that would be, so they just turn a blind eye on a national scale and just choose not to take any action. Every now and then a random cannabis store will be raided by federal police as some kind of publicity stunt. Then the news articles and protests will flare up. Then we go back to the current situation of utter insanity. As a result of this illegal status, all banking surrounding the business is completely broken, and the entire industry runs on burly people with guns driving around duffel bags of cash, even to pay taxes to state and local governments. Please send help, our government is very broken.

peteradio 3y ago
All it would take is the Supreme Court to reverse another precedent. The interpretation of interstate commerce is obviously wrong.
- labcomputer 3y ago
  > The interpretation of interstate commerce is obviously wrong. Eh... I mean, yes, but not in the way you want. The constitution is clear about the federal government having the authority to regulate interstate commerce. Running a payment processor in, say, New York for customers (businesses) in California is very clearly interstate commerce. Your NY-based business is selling a service (payment processing) to another business in California. New York and California are difference states. You are engaging in commerce across state lines. There's no consistent way to interpret "[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" in any meaningful way that still a) gives the federal government any control over interstate commerce; and b) prohibits the federal government from regulating this kind of interstate commerce. Wickard v. Filburn (which was overturned more than 25 years ago) was pretty obviously a stupid decision because there was nothing that wasn't interstate commerce under that ruling. I say it's stupid because why would the constitution give the congress the power to regulate specifically interstate commerce if it really meant they could regulate all commerce? That obvious contradiction is why it was overturned. It sounds like you're asking for a Wickard v Filburn-style decision, but in the other direction: Nothing is interstate commerce. I guess they could do that if you take the Justice Thomas approach that all the rules are made up, but then what's the point? Let's just dissolve congress and the supreme court and just have the president rule as he chooses.
  - omniglottal 3y ago
    Such a reasonable stance to end with such outright and absolute insanity... do you WANT a dictatorship??
  - eadmund 3y ago
    > if you take the Justice Thomas approach that all the rules are made up Why the out-of-nowhere attack on the judge who adheres most closely to the law and the Constitution? With respect to the matter at hand, I think that your analysis is correct: the federal government has the authority to prohibit a NY-based payment processor from processing certain payments in California. But it has no authority to prohibit that NY-based payment processor’s California-based subsidiary from processing those payments within California.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
eadmund 3y ago
> The federal government has absolute authority and supremacy on this matter No, it really doesn’t. It has absolute authority over interstate commerce and federal property, among other powers. It has no constitutional authority to regulate intrastate commerce. It also has the power to impose excise taxes, but I think that constitutionally must imply reasonable excise taxes: i.e., it may not impose a $1 billion/quart excise tax on ethanol rather than amending the Constitution to permit federal prohibition. I can see how reasonable people might disagree with that reading, but in conjunction with the 10th Amendment I find it compelling. The Constitution is really not that complex a document. It doesn’t always say what any one of us would like it to say (and we are free to advocate for its amendment!), but it pretty clearly says what it says (most of the time … there are a few gaps, as above).
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  The entirety of the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution: >This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding There is ZERO wiggle room there. The Federal government made a law saying you can't grow weed or sell weed. States cannot undercut that. The interstate commerce nonsense has always been a distraction.
  - eadmund 3y ago
    > >This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding > There is ZERO wiggle room there. Agreed: ‘the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof.’ Those laws of the United States, which are made in pursuance of the Constitution, are 100% the supreme law of the land (as are treaties made under the authority of the United States). That same Constitution also provides, ‘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.’ So a law of the United States that is not under one of the powers delegated to the United States is … not made in pursuance of the Constitution. And there is no power to regulate intrastate commerce. So yeah, zero wiggle room: the federal government has no constitutional authority to ban growing or selling marijuana within a state.

martin8412 3y ago

It's illegal in all states of the US. Some states have decided to make it legal, but that only protects you from prosecution by the state. If you enter a federal facility or you're stopped by a federal agent, then you can still go to jail despite the states' stance on cannabis.

fnordpiglet 3y ago
As I understand it since the Obama first administration DOJs stance has been to not pursue cannabis crimes in any state that has legalized it (“Cole memo”) which was rescinded by Sessions, but with no follow through by prosecutors. Barr again deprioritized cannabis and Garland has gone even further. The issue for banks and financial firms is they sit at both an interstate commerce point of view, which is firmly federal, but they also exist in a highly regulated and scrutinized world. Until the law changes DOJ deprioritizing cannabis enforcement helps them not at all - they’re still facilitating a crime, and can be held to account by a later administration on the whims of the electorate and they would be clearly in violation of the law.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > As I understand it since the Obama first administration DOJs stance has been to not pursue cannabis crimes in any state that has legalized it (“Cole memo”) which was rescinded by Sessions, but with no follow through by prosecutors The Cole Memo stopped being the important bar to prosecution with the Rohrbacker-Farr Amendment erecting a statutory bar since 2014 (which DoJ initially tried to dodge hard but got slapped down by a trial court in 2015 and the Ninth Circuit in 2016, and seems to have mostly given up after that.) But that amendment is a provision of spending bills restricting prosecution, not a legalization, and could easily be dropped and expose conduct to prosecution back as far as the statute of limitations.
  - landemva 3y ago
    > could easily be dropped and expose conduct to prosecution back as far as the statute of limitations. If a law is changed, there is protection from ex-post-facto prosecution.

whelp_24 3y ago

The US Federal Government doesn't devolve powers, the States have thier own powers (the part of the constitution that says any power not reserved for the Federal is for the states). But yes, technically it is the interstate commerce provision, and various rulings that have broadened what that means. State vs Federal power is complex and still a bit disputed.