> On 12/12/2012 5:21 PM, Kenneth wrote:
>
>> BTW, the new California law that was just passed--legalizing or
>> de-criminalizing
>> the possession of marijuana--goes flatly against a
>> seemingly-overarching Federal
>> law. It's a current example of this State-vs-Federal system that we
>> have. If no
>> one in California challenges it, then I'm *guessing* it will remain
>> valid. I'm
>> not sure if the Federal government itself can summarily strike it down
>> simply
>> because it differs from the 'higher' law.
>
> The US Constitution does not authorize Congress to ban marijuana[1]. And
> unless words have no meaning, the Tenth Amendment reserves to the states
> those powers which are not reserved to the federal government, but the
> courts have generally failed to enforce the Tenth.
>

I'm sure they would argue the commerce clause applies.

> Regards,
> John
> [1] Or to do a whole host of other things that add up to around 80% of
> our federal budget.

Like having a standing army, for one.

(yeah, yeah, I know, it's only funded for one year, and gets renewed 
every year, but no one is really fooled)

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message