Federal Drug laws null and void?

[AndreNicky]

Copied this from a different site

February 4th, 2009 Commentary by Pat Dollard on his website:

The New Hampshire state legislature took an unbelievably bold step Monday by introducing a resolution to declare certain actions by the federal government to completely totally void and warning that certain future acts will be viewed as a “breach of peace” with the states themselves that risks “nullifying the Constitution.”

This act by New Hampshire is a clear warning to the federal government that they could face being stripped of their power by the States.

The remarkable document outlines with perfect clarity, some basics long forgotten. For instance, it reminds Congress “That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations, slavery, and no other crimes whatsoever;. . . . .
therefore all acts of Congress which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution are altogether void, and of no force;”

According to this the federal government(congress) can only enforce treason, counterfeiting, piracies, felonys on high sea, offence against nation, slavery and NO OTHER CRIMES WHATSOEVER. Therefore federal laws for drugs are void, so why couldn't a lawyer use this documentation to prove state law trumps federal law?

 

[Haps]

Because it is opinion, not documentation. I agree with ya, but I'm easy.
H

 

[Capn]

I read this quote here, forgive me who ever I'm stealing this from!
"When you make the rules of the game, you always win."

 

[AndreNicky]

Hey haps, by opinion do u mean the way the constitution is interpreted? because according to this the constitution outlines what the feds can and can't enforce, never read the constitution myself so I'm not too sure what it says exactly. heres a link to the new hampshire bill if anyone is interested http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html

 

[AndreNicky]

I read this quote here, forgive me who ever I'm stealing this from!
"When you make the rules of the game, you always win."

Good point capn

 

[Capn]

Constitution says basically congress and the president can do what ever it takes to insure the "ongoing powers that be" can still do what ever the hell they want to do. Section 8 of the Con-stitution.

 

[AndreNicky]

Thanks for that info capn!

 

[Capn]

No Probs man.

Caveat Redemptor

 

[Haps]

I like the idea, but the fucking lawyers can twist shit till is smells the way they want it to, truth does not enter in. My reading of the constitution and bill of rights tells me that all of the drug laws are unconstitutional.

Perhaps a more useful point will be the schedule arguement, they classify weed as having no medical value, yet now the USDA or the FDA own an interest in patents issued to medical uses for cannabis. This is a conflict, but some fucking lawyer will find a way to justify it.

If our lobbiests were effective, they would be challenging these positions, instead of whatever they do.
H

 

[Capn]

It's always convenient to leave what you say open to interpretation. It seems like our for-fathers made it that way for a reason.

You mean instead of taking nice big fat handouts in exchange for the life, liberty, and justice for us all?
Can't see that happening any time soon..

 

[B. Self Reliant]

This is true. However I hate to say it, but the federal gov't has been in violation of the constitution for quite some time. Not just in the area of defining and enforcing crimes either, but in almost every area of daily life.

For example, the founding fathers called a federal income tax by a different name. They called it indentured servitude. But now, not only are we taxed a large percentage of our income, but a large percentage of the revenue raised is spent on "foreign aid." I have a hard time believing that the founding fathers, who would never approve of an income tax at all, would have been OK with a large portion of their income being forced away from their own pockets in the name of subsidizing Israel for instance.

Another example is any sort of social policy that's dictated by the Feds. Our federal gov't was designed to only have a small number of responsibilities, such as maintaining the border, defending our shores from attack, maintaing a currency that was common to all states, and a few others. For example, policies regarding abortion, illicit drugs, any restrictions to free markets. . . those are all unconstitutionally dictated and should be state issues according to the constitution.

Any one interested in this should read Ron Paul's book, "Manifesto, A Revolution." Regardless of whether you support his political views or not, you WILL learn something about how to effectively argue in favor of the opinions that you care about. It even comes as a book on CD.

 

[Capn]

Everything you type is true Self Reliant.

 

[Tony Aroma]

Therefore federal laws for drugs are void, so why couldn't a lawyer use this documentation to prove state law trumps federal law?

Two words: Commerce Clause. Another enumerated power granted to the federal government by the Constitution is the power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the states, and with the Indian tribes." Sometime between 1919 (when prohibition required a Constitutional amendment) and 1970 (the Controlled Substances Act), interpretation of the Commerce Clause loosened up considerably. The federal government says illicit drugs involve international and interstate commerce. So they have the right to regulate them. Of course interpreting "regulate" to mean "criminalize" is a bit of a stretch, even for the U.S. government. And then there's the question of how the government can regulate something that is forbidden and therefore officially doesn't exist.

 

[Preacher]

Yes, Commerce clause. And unfortunately the latest ruling on that, Gonzales v. Raich (which I should point out merely affirmed precedent set fifty years before it), says the "commerce between the several states" includes giving away weed and conducting the entire operation in the same state. I doubt it's any comfort but that went 5-4 with two dissents (though the majority opinion also said this ban on drugs fits "necessary and proper" as well :\).

 

[dontstepongrass]

commerce clause, bingo. the assumption is made by the feds that pot sold at a dispensary could end up crossing state lines, therefore making it a federal matter (in their eyes.)

 

[PharmaCan]

The majority of the language in the New Hampshire resolution come directly from writings by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. According to the author of the N.H. resolution, 20 other states have similar resolutions.

The Commerce Clause - that clause has been tricked out more times than a $2 whore. It's where the federal gov't claims most of its power comes from ...and the Supremes just keep agreeing with the feds.

PC

 

[PharmaCan]

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.

Unfortunately, the Tenth Amendment seems to be regarded as nothing more than a suggestion.

PC

 

[Micro420]

The majority of the language in the New Hampshire resolution come directly from writings by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. According to the author of the N.H. resolution, 20 other states have similar resolutions.

The Commerce Clause - that clause has been tricked out more times than a $2 whore. It's where the federal gov't claims most of its power comes from ...and the Supremes just keep agreeing with the feds.

PC

But what N.H. is talking about is pretty much "civil war" against the feds. Along with WA, AZ, MT, MI, OK and MO. The Commerce Clause has been pretty much the down fall of this country, leading up to this point. People
need to realize though its not a legal document... but

That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

the states need to govern this country, not the Feds. Thats were alot of the greed and corruption has come into play.

 

[drtask]

^ what he said. it is our duty to keep the feds at bay as US citizens. if the feds develop too much power, we are the ones that have to put them in their place. complacency has no place in this day and age. as long as they see more states turning their backs they will click. you can shut up one person ten people or even a thousand people. you can't silence a nation.

 

[Capn]

They have ALOT of power. It would probably take the world.