Is Prop 19 “Unconstitutional”?
http://reason.com/blog/2010/09/14/is-proposition-19-unconstituti
State legalization of marijuana would violate the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause. which says this Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance there of shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” Since Prop. 19 conflicts with the federal Controlled Substances Act, it is unconstitutional.
So isnt Prop 19 Unconstitutional since it goes against the Constitution and the Law?
yes
It won’t be unconstitutional because it is not an attempt to illegally change federal law. The states don’t have to enforce federal law for them.
No the Federal controlled substance act is.
LOL
The ‘Federal Controlled Substance Act” is not in the Constitution.
I don’t think you understand the Supremacy Clause.
Who cares what it is if they want it in the fairy state have it…
The fun thing about the law is you can really argue either way and it will be up to the Judiciary to decide whether or not it is. I don’t really see how growing pot in your backyard is participating in interstate commerce though.
Yes and no. every state makes their own law and are allowed to abide by them but overall the feds will do what they want and follow the country’s laws and not the state’s which is why in like california medicinal marijuana shops get shut down often.
Even if it passes in California it is still illegal under federal law.
The US Constitution says that no state law can override a federal law.
@@
Where is it written in stone that our government must be ran by people with a big ol’ stick lodged right up their bunghole?
Is that in the Preamble or Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense”?
No
it isn’t in conflict, as they aren’t preventing the Feds from enforcing federal drug laws.
There are a bunch of things that are federal crimes that aren’t state crimes.
No. Prop 19 is not unconstitutional. It’s a proposition. If it was made into law it would technically be unconstitutional. Although, the federal law would have to come and enforce it. The state does not have to. I am sure the lawmakers will do something.
I support it.
As a Californian, I don’t have a problems with prop 19. However, I think this ballot initiative is repugnant to the US Constitution in relation of the Commerce Clause. Therefore, I won’t vote for or against it….
it encourages greater freedoms towards using pot rite? so it can only be a good thing
*im assuming*
It is and it will be once it’s passed (IF it passes). Of course, those who want to see it legalized won’t see it that way and they will only view the federal government actions as an assault on State sovereignty which will only inflame the issue more.
Why? Do you own a lumber yard, an oil company, a liquor distributor, or a pharmaceutical racket?
I would argue; for California to cede its sovereignty with such an inane law violates the U.S. Constitution’s 10th Amendment. The California law you cited should be shot down in appellate court. Contrary to popular belief, state law cannot just be nullified by federal law, so if prop 19 passes, it’s the sworn duty of California’s authorities to protect its citizens from the feds.
Here are a few quotes from people smarter than me:
“One may well ask: How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others? The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”– Martin Luther King, Jr.
“I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.” — Professor Bernardo de la Paz, _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_, by Robert Heinlien
“If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.” –Thomas Jefferson
I’d argue quite the opposite, that it’s Federal prohibition itself that is unconstitutional. The supremacy clause applies only to actual enumerated powers given to the Federal Government in the Constitution (for example, Article I section VIII gives Congress the power, among other things “To provide and maintain a navy”, and the Supremacy Clause prevents state or lower Governments from forming their own navies. Same with the power “to establish post offices and post roads;”, states cannot do that because the Federal government has claimed that power.
Now Amendment X of the Bill of Rights reads “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.” The power to ban substances, whether they be drugs or nerve gases or leaded gasoline, isn’t one of the powers delegated to the United States government, so truly those powers belong to the states to ban or regulate as they wish. The fact that the Amendment XV!!! was passed (Prohibition of Alcohol) and added to the Constitution is a concession by the Federal government that it did not have the power to ban chemicals previously, and that amendment has since been repealed (and only applied to alcohol to begin with.)
Therefore, Prop 19 is completely Constitutional and is a state matter not at all in conflict with the legitimate authority of the Federal Government as granted to it under the Constitution.
It may well be. I still voted for it.
Its not unconstitutional, but it does go against federal law.