5 ms·

“I don’t understand the US system” No, you understand the system perfectly fine. The current situation is completely dysfunctional. The federal government has

“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.
    - objectivetruth 3y ago
      [dead]
    - mrguyorama 3y ago
      >adheres most closely to the law and the Constitution That is entirely opinion.
    - xcrunner529 3y ago
      [dead]
  - peteradio 3y ago
    > Wickard v. Filburn (which was overturned more than 25 years ago) Please expand on this... Are you talking about U.S. v Lopez? Just because some limit was found on the Commerce clause did not vacate the original decision. I think the credit card fees would be subject to federal oversight but not the fundamental transaction facilitated.
    - labcomputer 3y ago
      I was referring to Lopez, and I'll concede that "overturn" is probably too strong a word. But it was the first time in 60 years that SCOTUS didn't roll over when congress claimed to have authority under the commerce clause and marked the beginning of increased skepticism of commerce clause claims. Moreover, the majority in Lopez proposed a four-part test, the first of which was whether the activity being is economic in nature. Previously under Wickard v. Filburn, the standard was whether the regulated activity could substantially impact interstate commerce. To see just how absurd this is (and how Lopez changes it), consider this: Can the federal government regulate whether I ride my bike to work? The government is charged with protecting national security. And part of that is ensuring adequate supplies of raw materials needed to prosecute a war. Fossil fuels are one such necessary material. If everyone rides a bike to work, oil producers and refiners may go out of business, thus substantially impacting interstate commerce for a domain in which the federal government clearly has a legitimate interest. Therefore, under Wickard v. Filburn the federal government has clear constitutional authority to make it illegal for me to commute to work by bicycle. That's insane. And this is very analogous to what Filburn did that led to the case Wickard v. Filburn: By riding a bicycle, my impact on interstate commerce is caused by the fact that I am simply declining to participate in interstate commerce. Filburn grew wheat for his own consumption. However, under US v. Lopez my bicycle commute is a noneconomic activity, and not something that can be regulated. This removes an enormous class of activities from congress's regulatory authority. > I think the credit card fees would be subject to federal oversight but not the fundamental transaction facilitated. Sure, fine. But MasterCard won't process your payments if they can't charge you a fee for facilitating your transactions. The constitution gives congress broad authority to regulate interstate commerce. They are well within that authority to say "you may charge fees for payment services for X but not for Y".
- 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.

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.
  - objectivetruth 3y ago
    [dead]
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    >adheres most closely to the law and the Constitution That is entirely opinion.
  - xcrunner529 3y ago
    [dead]
- peteradio 3y ago
  > Wickard v. Filburn (which was overturned more than 25 years ago) Please expand on this... Are you talking about U.S. v Lopez? Just because some limit was found on the Commerce clause did not vacate the original decision. I think the credit card fees would be subject to federal oversight but not the fundamental transaction facilitated.
  - labcomputer 3y ago
    I was referring to Lopez, and I'll concede that "overturn" is probably too strong a word. But it was the first time in 60 years that SCOTUS didn't roll over when congress claimed to have authority under the commerce clause and marked the beginning of increased skepticism of commerce clause claims. Moreover, the majority in Lopez proposed a four-part test, the first of which was whether the activity being is economic in nature. Previously under Wickard v. Filburn, the standard was whether the regulated activity could substantially impact interstate commerce. To see just how absurd this is (and how Lopez changes it), consider this: Can the federal government regulate whether I ride my bike to work? The government is charged with protecting national security. And part of that is ensuring adequate supplies of raw materials needed to prosecute a war. Fossil fuels are one such necessary material. If everyone rides a bike to work, oil producers and refiners may go out of business, thus substantially impacting interstate commerce for a domain in which the federal government clearly has a legitimate interest. Therefore, under Wickard v. Filburn the federal government has clear constitutional authority to make it illegal for me to commute to work by bicycle. That's insane. And this is very analogous to what Filburn did that led to the case Wickard v. Filburn: By riding a bicycle, my impact on interstate commerce is caused by the fact that I am simply declining to participate in interstate commerce. Filburn grew wheat for his own consumption. However, under US v. Lopez my bicycle commute is a noneconomic activity, and not something that can be regulated. This removes an enormous class of activities from congress's regulatory authority. > I think the credit card fees would be subject to federal oversight but not the fundamental transaction facilitated. Sure, fine. But MasterCard won't process your payments if they can't charge you a fee for facilitating your transactions. The constitution gives congress broad authority to regulate interstate commerce. They are well within that authority to say "you may charge fees for payment services for X but not for Y".
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.