4 ms·

> The federal government has absolute authority and supremacy on this matter No, it really doesn’t. It has absolute authority over interstate commerce and fed

> 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.
  - singleshot_ 3y ago
    Recall the holding in Raich: Congress has the power to regulate local activities that are part of a class of activities that affect interstate commerce.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > The interstate commerce nonsense has always been a distraction. The interstate commerce discussion is about whether Congress had the power to make such a law in the first place. An act of Congress outside of its Constitutional authority is no law, and the Supremact Clause doesn’t save it, it just puts Constitutional acts of Congress above contrary acts of states.

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.
- singleshot_ 3y ago
  Recall the holding in Raich: Congress has the power to regulate local activities that are part of a class of activities that affect interstate commerce.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> The interstate commerce nonsense has always been a distraction. The interstate commerce discussion is about whether Congress had the power to make such a law in the first place. An act of Congress outside of its Constitutional authority is no law, and the Supremact Clause doesn’t save it, it just puts Constitutional acts of Congress above contrary acts of states.