Prompted by “Marijuana Legalization in Colorado: Can Oklahoma and Nebraska Get It Reversed?”: http://reason.com/archives/2015/01/12/conservatives-cannabis-and-the-constitut
Here is the reported conflict in a nutshell, starting with state rights advocacy…
“…the choice was clear. ‘This is not about marijuana at its core,’ he said in a press release. ‘It is about the U.S. Constitution, the Tenth Amendment, and the right of states to govern themselves as they see fit. If the Supreme Court can force Colorado to criminalize a substance or activity and commandeer state resources to enforce extra-constitutional federal statutes and UN agreements, then it can essentially do anything…”
On the other federal side of the judicial coin…
“Oklahoma and Nebraska argue that the Supreme Court should overturn Amendment 64, the legalization measure that Colorado voters approved in 2012, because it ‘directly conflicts with federal law,’ which the Constitution makes ‘the supreme law of the land.'”
They mean federal law (e.g. CSA — Controlled Substances Act) ruled constitutional solely by way of the Commerce Clause — “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”. Do you see anything in that clause referring to banning merely holding a plant (e.g. cannabis) in your hand? Of course not. Is there anything historically written about the intent of that clause (i.e. judicially valued intent of law) justifying the Controlled Substances Act? No. The original intent of the Commerce Clause was to prevent law abuse in the form of state favoritism against a healthy national (so consequently international) trade system.
Our Supreme Court has only one job — interpret our federal Constitution. Irrationally applying a clause (which is demonstrably what they have done in this case) is the exact opposite of interpretation. Case closed in a justice system (one full of people understanding completely and consistently applied rationality is inevitably required for just law — justice requires fairness, which requires objectivity). The war on some drugs is blatantly illegal, so our just society must immediately declare a ‘cease fire’ (nonetheless tell the United Nations that their anti-certain-drug provisions are not nationally constitutional, as required by those provisions — i.e. we are not violating international treaties upon declaring the CSA unconstitutional) and instead find a non-law-abusing approach to manage certain drug abuse. That’s a wrap, folks. Oh, wait…
Our Supreme Court (basically due to Franklin Roosevelt’s “New Deal”) undeniably illegally redefined the Commerce Clause from “To regulate Commerce” to ‘to regulate any activity having a substantial effect on commerce’. Holding a certain plant in your hand was “lawfully” declared by our public servants to be an activity having that substantial effect, and voila — no need for a federal constitutional amendment similarly needed for Alcohol Prohibition. See the “switch in time that saved nine” (Wikipedia), if you want to learn more about this ugly chapter in American history that has grossly expanded by “legal” precedence through this day to the utter discredit of our rule-of-law.
Factually speaking, the war on some drugs was prompted by the political left’s bludgeoning of the rule-of-constitutional-law supposedly for the sake of equality, but instead ironically strengthening oligarchical oppression against the masses in a nation carefully constitutionally designed by oppressed revolutionaries to prevent that disastrous oppression — and Republicans dominantly hypocritically still support that political leftism move.
In other words, the American Revolution is still clearly being fought in the court of public opinion, and pre-American conservatives spanning the left-through-right political spectrum remain powerfully entrenched. Pre-American conservatives firmly negate the revolutionary unalienable right to liberty (absolutely defined intentionally or not for optimal equality within civility) by instead continuously reinforcing the pathetically ‘done that, been there’ (not liberal, nor progressive) notion spanning history that popularly subjectively defining risk and therefore harm by law (as provenly defined by dominant oligarchical forces of persuasion — e.g. reefer madness) is inevitable and somehow just (despite the blatant absence of fairness, so honestly undeniable absence of justice).
Also factually speaking — and this cannot be emphasized enough in a society embracing at least some degree of freedom from oppression — your thought activity always has a substantial effect on commerce, because such activity literally determines all of your buying and selling decisions. As technology continues to advance towards reading and manipulating thoughts (also factually speaking), our Supreme Court — solely in its illegal redefining of the Commerce Clause — has honestly undeniably granted Congress authority to regulate your thought activity. If the American public at large fails to care about that fact, then our nation is truly sunk by the flood of selfish interests corrupting our rule-of-law to complete discredit for over two centuries and counting, so increasing unhealthy stress against the masses with no rule-of-law to justly stabilize the situation to prevent the critical mass igniting another violently revolutionary backlash (which would negatively affect us all from the powerful through powerless).
I understand most of my fans are political leftists (based at least upon cannabis culture being leftist). While I appreciate (and share) the honorable intention towards achieving equality as a healthier balance (so better survival odds) for our species, the academic and disrespectful bludgeoning against the rule-of-constitutional-law supposedly to achieve that equality is ironically terrible, and Certain Drug Prohibition and the continuous absence of social and financial equality demonstrate that terrible methodology.
The rule-of-law matters big time, and if anyone cares about ending the war on some drugs (prime example of why that rule matters big time), then that someone must carefully respect that rule to ensure law abuse is minimized (if not possible to eliminate).
To regulate stupidity is ironically stupid, because any legal line is never stupid-proof (stupidity, as history constantly reveals, exists on both sides of the rule-of-law). Abusing power (e.g. greed) is stupid, because of the Rule of Reality (i.e. reality, like literally every system within reality, requires extremely dominating balance for stability), so anyone abusing power within reality inevitably sufferingly pays in full for that abuse (no exceptions). Most people apparently remain unaware of (or unconvinced by) the Rule of Reality, so they either abuse power recklessly (believing they are getting away with it), and/or they press to legislate equality in part through wealth redistribution against power abuse.
If you want to take wealth away from someone coercively, you need enough power to achieve that goal. Wealthier folks can buy dominating defensive forces to prevent that wealth removal. The power therefore granted to government (always the group granted power to create wealth redistribution for equality) must exceed that defensive power to achieve that goal. However, as history constantly reveals, the government takes that granted power and becomes the wealthy class (never created that equality even once). Equality can never be regulated. It must be earned through intelligent voluntaryism. Intelligence ultimately requires the force that only comes from completely objective reasoning. The Rule of Reality is that fundamental reasoning (all comforts are paid for in full, and literally all power wielded throughout the entire existence of our species amounts to pitifully virtually nothing against the power of reality itself to collect that payment, noting reality literally has a 100% winning record with no way of possibly losing — as proven by reality still existing now, so proving that no future event ends reality itself, because time is experimentally proven to be a spatial dimension — i.e. the future is now and reality still dominates).
I understand that law and boredom tend to blend together, and that is exactly how law abuse is manifested and powerfully sustained to serve a selfish agenda at serious societal expense. A major collision on a highway gets mainstream media attention. A beautiful young child tragically shooting a gun ignites parental horror and also generates that broadcasted attention. Law abuse (at least typically) applies far more unhealthy stress against society, and it does so without that widespread attention — truly a silent and illegal weapon of mass destruction.
I maintain that ending Republican hypocrisy (by publicly exposing it in the true highest court of the land — the court of public opinion) from the outrageous ‘war on some drugs’ exception to the rule-of-law, combined with lack of objectively proven disaster from “weakening drug laws” (such lacking also broadly expressed in that highest court), delivers the righteous ‘game over’ blow against the actually illegal, ineffective, destructive, and unwarranted (scientifically speaking) Certain Drug Prohibition.
Pretending to oppose certain drug abuse by way of blatant law abuse is obviously purely outrageous, and the public must understand that critical point now to minimize the agonizing correction from the Rule of Reality that remains hardcore scientifically imminent against dominant forces within our society to correct for the suffering of millions (if not billions) of non-violent (nor rights-infringing) — i.e. good — people.