United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Medical Marijuana Becomes Legal in Ohio; Sets Foundation to Nullify Federal Prohibition in Practice
Source:
Tenth Amendment Center
URL Source: http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.co ... deral-prohibition-in-practice/
Published: Sep 9, 2016
Author: Mike Maharrey
Post Date: 2016-09-09 21:48:32 by Hondo68
Keywords: marijuana program in Ohio, access medicinal cannabis, Gov. John Kasich signed HB523
Views: 8786
Comments: 60
COLUMBUS, Ohio (Sept. 8, 2016) – Medical marijuana officially became legal in Ohio today, marking the step forward toward nullifying the unconstitutional federal prohibition on cannabis in practice. Rep. Stephen Huffman (R) introduced House Bill 523 (HB523) on April 14. The legislation sets in motion the creation of a limited medical marijuana program in Ohio. There is hereby established a medical marijuana control program in the department of commerce and the state board of pharmacy. The department shall provide for the licensure of medical marijuana cultivators and processors and the licensure of laboratories that test medical marijuana. The board shall provide for the licensure of retail dispensaries and the registration of patients and their caregivers. The department and board shall administer the program. The House passed the bill by a 71-25 margin on May 10. The Senate approved the measure 19-15 on May 25th. The House concurred with Senate amendments 67-29. The new law establishes a limited “seed-to-sale” system for growing, testing and dispensing marijuana. Patients suffering from 20 medical conditions will now be able to access medicinal cannabis with some limitations. The law prohibits smoking marijuana and does not allow for home cultivation of cannabis. The law permits patients to use patches, edibles and vaping products. Although the new law went into effect today, it will take up to two years for the program to get up and running. According to the Columbus Dispatch, “The system will be overseen by Ohio Department of Commerce, Ohio Board of Pharmacy, State Medical Board and an appointed advisory committee. Initial rules will be rolled out later this month, but marijuana is not expected to be available for 18 months to two years.” With passage of the bill, Ohioans for Medical Marijuana dropped its effort to put the issue on the November ballot, citing lack of money and other issues. “This is a joyous day for the thousands of Ohioans who will finally be able to safely access much-needed medicine,” Ohioans for Medical Marijuana spokesman Aaron Marshall said after Gov. John Kasich signed HB523. “We still have much work ahead of us to improve this imperfect law…” According to activists on the ground in Ohio, the success of the program will be determined in large part by the rule-making and implementation process over the next several months. “September 8 is the first step in a long process, and MPP and Ohioans for Medical Marijuana are watching that process closely. Many important policy decisions that will directly affect the success or failure of the system are yet to be made,” a Marijuana Policy Project spokesperson said on the organization’s website. Despite the federal prohibition on marijuana, measures such as HB523 remain perfectly constitutional, and the feds can do little if anything to stop them in practice. EFFECT ON FEDERAL PROHIBITION While somewhat limited, Ohio’s new statute does partially remove one layer of law prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana in the state, but federal prohibition remains in place. Of course, the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to ban or regulate marijuana within the borders of a state, despite the opinion of the politically connected lawyers on the Supreme Court. If you doubt this, ask yourself why it took a constitutional amendment to institute federal alcohol prohibition. While this Ohio law does not alter federal law, it takes an important step toward nullifying in effect the federal ban. FBI statistics show that law enforcement makes approximately 99 of 100 marijuana arrests under state, not federal law. By easing the state laws, the Ohio legislature would remove some of the basis for 99 percent of marijuana arrests. Furthermore, figures indicate it would take 40 percent of the DEA’s yearly-budget just to investigate and raid all of the dispensaries in Los Angeles – a single city in a single state. That doesn’t include the cost of prosecution. The lesson? The feds lack the resources to enforce marijuana prohibition without state assistance. Ohio joins a growing number of states simply ignoring federal prohibition. Colorado, Washington state and Alaska have all legalized both recreational and medical marijuana, and 23 states now allow cannabis for medical use. With nearly half the country legalizing marijuana, the feds find themselves in a position where they simply can’t enforce prohibition any more. The feds need state cooperation to fight the “drug war,” and that has rapidly evaporated in the last few years with state legalization, practically nullifying the ban. “The lesson here is pretty straight forward. When enough people say, ‘No!’ to the federal government, and enough states pass laws backing those people up, there’s not much the feds can do to shove their so-called laws, regulations or mandates down our throats,” Tenth Amendment Center founder and executive director Michael Boldin said. Poster Comment: John Boehner can quit crying now, they legalized his Medical Marijuana. Can you smell the freedom?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: hondo68 (#0)
While this Ohio law does not alter federal law, it takes an important step toward nullifying in effect the federal ban. FBI statistics show that law enforcement makes approximately 99 of 100 marijuana arrests under state, not federal law. By easing the state laws, the Ohio legislature would remove some of the basis for 99 percent of marijuana arrests. Of course, that is utter bullshit. Possession of any amount remains a federal crime and Ohio can do nothing to change that. Federal law and international treaties are supreme and any state law in conflict with either is null and void. Gonzales v. Raich arose in California via the 9th Circuit Court and was decided in the U.S. Supreme Court. It remains good law and slaps down all state laws inconsistent with federal law. The Supreme Court clearly stated, "The Supremacy Clause unambiguously provides that if there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail." Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 27-29 (2005) Second, limiting the activity to marijuana possession and cultivation “in accordance with state law” cannot serve to place respondents’ activities beyond congressional reach. The Supremacy Clause unambiguously provides that if there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail. It is beyond peradventure that federal power over commerce is “‘superior to that of the States to provide for the welfare or necessities of their inhabitants,’” however legitimate or dire those necessities may be. Wirtz, 392 U. S., at 196 (quoting Sanitary Dist. of Chicago v. United States, 266 U. S. 405, 426 (1925)). See also 392 U. S., at 195–196; Wickard, 317 U. S., at 124 (“‘[N]o form of state activity can constitutionally thwart the regulatory power granted by the commerce clause to Congress’”). - - - - - - - - - - [37] We acknowledge that evidence proffered by respondents in this case regarding the effective medical uses for marijuana, if found credible after trial, would cast serious doubt on the accuracy of the findings that require marijuana to be listed in Schedule I. See, e. g., Institute of Medicine, Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base 179 (J. Joy, S. Watson, & J. Benson eds. 1999) (recognizing that “[s]cientific data indicate the potential therapeutic value of cannabinoid drugs, primarily THC [Tetrahydrocannabinol] for pain relief, control of nausea and vomiting, and appetite stimulation”); see also Conant v. Walters, 309 F. 3d 629, 640–643 (CA9 2002) (Kozinski, J., concurring) (chronicling medical studies recognizing valid medical uses for marijuana and its derivatives). But the possibility that the drug may be reclassified in the future has no relevance to the question whether Congress now has the power to regulate its production and distribution. Respondents’ submission, if accepted, would place all homegrown medical substances beyond the reach of Congress’ regulatory jurisdiction.
More correctly: "The federal government is using their constitutional authority to ban and regulate marijuana within the borders of a state according to the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court -- despite what some armchair lawyer wannabe says.
I not only asked myself, I looked it up. An amendment was desired, not required. But rather than ask the question, where's the proof that an amendment was required?
That's true, and the reason is that most arrests are for possession. BUT, if Ohio is going to legalize production and distribution of marijuana, that's where the federal government gets involved. If the number of growers, dealers and traffickers increases in Ohio, so will the number of federal arrests -- assuming the justice department is allowed to do so.
"The federal government lacks any constitutional authority to ban or regulate marijuana within the borders of a state, despite the opinion of the politically connected lawyers on the Supreme Court. If you doubt this, ask yourself why it took a constitutional amendment to institute federal alcohol prohibition." Only federal laws made "in pursuance thereof" (see Art VI) are constitutional -- despite what "armchair lawyer wannabes say".
Just one of thousands of bullshit laws to be ignored. Glad to see the movement spreading fast.
You mean rather than petition Congress to change it? Can we do that with any law or just the laws you don't like?
Federal power is not derived from or diminished by the pronouncements of potheads on the internet. The Court says what the law is.
Someone has to. If their interpretation is not what the people had in mind, the law can be rewritten.
And their bosses, We The People, give the black robed tyrants the finger in our quest for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Gov bootlickers on the internet don't make illegal legislation, law. The only thing preventing Federal prosecutions in certain states is a FEDERAL law (by way of Senate amendment) which withdrew funding for prosecutions. It only applies to specified states, and only applies to medical marijuana. Ohio is not listed in the current law, and is not listed in the proposed appropriation bill for FY 2017. The FY 2016 appropriations law ceases operation after September 30, 2016. The House DOJ appropriations bill for 2017 (114 H.R. 5393) does not include the term marijuana. The Senate DOJ appropriations bill for 2017 (114 S. 2837) includes the Senator Rohrabacher provision with addition states, not to include Ohio. The Senate bill passed committee and was calendared in April 2016. The House bill passed committee and was calendared in June 2016. - - - - - - - - - - https://www.congress.gov/amendment/114th-congress/house-amendment/332 The Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment - - - - - - - - - - https://www.congress.gov/crec/2015/06/02/CREC-2015-06-02-pt1-PgH3700-2.pdf CREC 2015-02-02 Amendment text at 3745 Debate at 3745-3747 Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment. The Clerk read as follows: At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following: Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to any of the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin, or with respect to either the District of Columbia or Guam, to prevent any of them from implementing their own laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana. - - - - - - - - - - Sec. 537 of the 2017 Senate appropriations bill for 2017 (S. 2837), at pp. 106-07 reads: 1 vent any of them from implementing their own laws that Section 538 at p. 107 applies to hemp and reads: Ohio still is not there. The bill has not yet passed. It passed Senate committee and was calendared in April 2016. Latest Action: 04/21/2016 Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 432. (All Actions) - - - - - - - - - - https://www.congress.gov/114/crpt/srpt239/CRPT-114srpt239.pdf APRIL 21, 2016.—Ordered to be printed Mr. SHELBY, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany S. 2837] At p. 128: Section 538 prohibits the use of funds by the Department of Justice - - - - - - - - - - https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/5393 The House bill is H.R.5393 — 114th Congress (2015-2016) Latest Action: 06/07/2016 Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 471. https://www.congress.gov/114/bills/hr5393/BILLS-114hr5393rh.pdf A search of the House bill indicates it does not contain the term marijuana or marihuana. https://www.congress.gov/114/crpt/hrpt605/CRPT-114hrpt605.pdf CRPT-114hrpt605, House Committee Report on FY 2017 Appropriations for Commerce, DOJ and Sci (for HR 5393) - - - - - - - - - - A Congress.gov indicates no other current legislation includes the term marijuana. - - - - - - - - - - https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/Appropriations+for+Fiscal+Year+2017 Appropriations for FY 2017, status in congress. - - - - - - - - - -
Gov bootlickers on the internet don't make illegal legislation, law. The Legislature writes laws, the Courts say what the law is, they interpret is. The government makes the laws, and they decide what is constitutional. Dopers on the internet do not. Patriots who give the law the finger and currently in prison is great numbers for all sorts of things, including drugs. Current law does not restrain Federal funding for protections in Ohio.
Government legislators, under constitutional restraints, make the laws, and the SCOTUS issues opinions on constitutionality in contested cases, - opinions that are NOT law, and can be reversed. Nolu hates our Constitution and our republican form of government.
Too many of them have infested this site. We The People, give the black robed tyrants the finger in our quest for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I give the finger to bleating sheep like Galin and nolu sham. tpaine, Chief Justice of the Imaginary Patriot Supreme Court has spoken. It is obvious that when he speaks, nobody that matters listens. SCOTUS and other courts use the term good law rather frequently. Either they are all wrong, or tpaine is wrong. The tpaine pronouncement also implies that Westlaw and Lexis-Nexis do not know what they are doing or what they are talking about. Precedential court holdings are good law. They remain good law until they are no longer good law. tpaine has an amazing observation that SCOTUS opinions can be reversed. How true. And statute laws can be struck down, repealed, abrogated, or derogated. Any provision of the Constitution, including amendments, may be repealed. There is no law that cannot be changed or repealed. - - - - - - - - - - ABOUT GOOD LAW https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_law http://guides.libraries.uc.edu/c.php?g=222559&p=1472876 https://lawschool.westlaw.com/marketing/display/RE/10 It is therefore necessary to verify the validity of any case you cite by checking its history and finding other cases that have cited it. Only after doing so can you rest assured that the cases supporting your argument are good law. - - - - - - - - - - GOOD LAW AT SCOTUS Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997) - - - - - - - - - - Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) - - - - - - - - - - Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364 (1993) - - - - - - - - - - Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) - - - - - - - - - - Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993 - - - - - - - - - - Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) - - - - - - - - - - F. C. C. v. Fox Television Stations, 556 U.S. 502 (2009) - - - - - - - - - - Hedges v. U.S., 404 F.3d 744 (3d Cir. 2005) - - - - - - - - - - Moses H. Cone Hospital v. Mercury Constr. Corp. 460 U.S. 1 (1983) - - - - - - - - - - Wright v. West, 505 U.S. 277 (1992) - - - - - - - - - - Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992) - - - - - - - - - - Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764 (1990) - - - - - - - - - -
Don't forget Congress and the courts. You give them hell just like tpaine. You take a few tokes, get on the internet, and tell them what the law really is. And they ignore you, unless you actually strut your bullshit in a real court.
That is all your low intelligence level permits you to give....so typical of gutter trash.
That is actually all the recognition that you and the other boot-licking statist, government worshiping whores here deserve. Don't be a fucking hypocrite you disgusting scumbag - YOU posted an image of Jesus flipping the bird during one of your melt-downs over at Liberty Post when you and the other libertarian-fearing jackhole were slandering Ron Paul. Fucking hypocritical, self-righteous piece of shit. That is actually all the recognition that you ... It is unfortunate that is all you have to contribute. Who the Hell is Ron Paulo?
Eat shit and die asshole. The only thing you and your asshole canary clan contributes is displaying your fealty to the State and your submissive authority fetish. Keep licking those jack-boots slave You get pissed of so quickly, I enjoy doing that to you.
Assholes like you deserve nothing but contempt and scorn
Feel free; YOU go ahead and waste your life petitioning politicians who don't give a shit about you or liberty. The time for that passed a couple decades ago, as Big Stupid Government passes pay-to-play laws in exchange for bribes faster than we can even begin to repeal them. Time to start ignoring them; we had enough laws for a normal society a hundred years ago - since then most laws are purchased to benefit specific lobbies. Ignore stupid laws from stupid government.
nolu sham dreams on, --- Government legislators, under constitutional restraints, make the laws, and the SCOTUS issues opinions on constitutionality in contested cases, - opinions that are NOT law, and can be reversed. Nolu hates our Constitution and our republican form of government. Both publications are creatures of our legal 'system', which is totally compromised by socialistic law schools, which you have obviously never attended, -- poor soul. Good law for the big govt establishment, and its bootlickers, like you, nolu. Correct, except for your opinion about the basic principles and amendments to our Constitution. Our fundamental rights CANNOT be repealed. -- Your opinion that they can, -- outs you once again as a pathetic socialistic fascist. Thanks.
The camel's nose is under the circus tent. Ohio, with it's once great but now withering cities like Cleveland, Youngstown, Toledo, Dayton and Cincinnati will become a haven for drugged worthless fools. It's a short step from 'medical' weed to weed for everybody! The nation will continue its collapse into the swampy mire of drug culture. Keep an eye on the Philippines and it's new president who has copied a page from Singapore's playbook. He has ordered troops into drug zones and so far has executed over 2,500 druggies. I hope that America doesn't have to go through that in order to clean up it's burgeoning drug addiction. Liberals are a lot like Slinkys, they're good for nothing but they bring a smile to your face as you shove them down the stairs.
All the courts are wrong and we derive our laws from internet crackpots like you. Suuuure we do.
"jury of your peers". Yes your fate is in the hands of us, your fellow internet crackpot peers. Correct, except for your opinion about the basic principles and amendments to our Constitution. Our fundamental rights CANNOT be repealed. -- Your opinion that they can, -- outs you once again as a pathetic socialistic fascist pawn. Thanks. Your sarcastic, but meaningless, babbling is noted, nolu. -- Now, -- go find some more opinionated spam you can use to avoid rational discourse.
Yes your fate is in the hands of us, your fellow internet crackpot peers. Ignorance is bliss. In the MEDICAL MARIJUANA case of Brandon Coats v. DISH Network, LLC in Colorado, the jury did not say anything. The Court upheld a motion to dismiss the Coats' suit for failure to state a claim. The trial Court noted that, "The court cannot grant a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that no set of facts can prove that the plaintiff is entitled to relief." The Court concluded that, "Because the Court finds that use of marijuana, even where such use is in full compliance with Colorado's Medical Marijuana Amendment, is not a lawful activity, Plaintiff's Complaint must be dismissed pursuant to C.R.C.P. 12(b)(5) for failure to state a claim." Brandon Coats was fired and he stayed fired. How did your happy horseshit work out for Brandon Coats?
Any part of the Constitution can be repealed. Such action does depend upon the approval of any crackpot on the internet.
Fixed it. In America we don't do extrajudicial executions - thank God. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Your opinion about the basic principles and amendments to our Constitution is wrong.. Our fundamental rights CANNOT be repealed. They are inalienable, thus any attempt to repeal them would be null and void from inception. -- Your opinion that they can, -- outs you once again as a pathetic socialistic fascist pawn. Your fiat 'decree' makes you to be that crackpot. Thanks.
What a strange and outright bizarre consideration to suggest.
There are no inalienable rights. Amdt 5 explicitly provides for capital punishment. When they execute some halfwit like you, they take away your supposedly inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit happiness. The only thing you can pursue is a dirt nap. The Constitution is the highest law. The Declaration of Independence has never been a law. Damn, you truly are bone stupid.
Before it's all over, America will be clamoring for 'judicial' but swift executions of all who sell drugs! Users get six months to change their habits and if they don't they get to join the rat who sold them the poison. No drug problems in Singapore and problems being drastically reduced in the Philippines. Liberals are a lot like Slinkys, they're good for nothing but they bring a smile to your face as you shove them down the stairs.
Like the way you think.
Liberals are a lot like Slinkys, they're good for nothing but they bring a smile to your face as you shove them down the stairs.
Our fundamental rights CANNOT be repealed. They are inalienable, thus any attempt to repeal them would be null and void from inception. Only halfwit like you would think that the 5th Amendment allows capital punishment except in criminal or treasonous cases, --- where, upon conviction, the accused is deemed to have forfeited their otherwise inalienable rights. Never have claimed the Declaration is law, seeing that is an outline of our principles. You, obviously, have no principles, poor soul.
By all means, let's do away with the presumption of innocence, due process...hey what the hell, why not do away with the 4th amendment... Yes, let's become like the other third world nations and execute dealers and stoners all in the name of the glorious war on drugs. How a bout putting a bounty on potheads? I'm sure there are a few here who would relish the idea. On second thought, since you seem to admire authoritarian societies, why don't you move to Singapore or the Philippines? No drug problems in Singapore and problems being drastically reduced in the Philippines. Not a whole lot of problems in Portugal either. What happened when Portugal decriminalized drugs In July 2001, Portugal decriminalized all drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, and heroin. The possession of small quantities of those drugs was shifted to a public health — rather than criminal — issue. Rather than getting arrested for a small amount, you get sent to a "dissuasion commission" where a doctor, lawyer, and social worker prescribe treatment or give you a fine. Mic's Zeeshan Aleem reports that people walk away without a penalty most of the time. Here's what the data says about Portugal's decriminalization: • Drug-related HIV infections have plummeted by over 90% since 2001, according to the drug policy think tank Transform. • Drug-related deaths in Portugal are the second-lowest in the European Union. Just 3 in a million people die of overdoses there, compared with the EU average of 17.3 per million. • The number of adults who have done drugs in the past year has decreased steadily since 2001. • Compared to rest of the EU, young people in Portugal now use the least amount of "legal high" drugs like synthetic marijuana, which are especially dangerous. • The percentage of drug-related offenders in Portuguese prisons fell from 44% in 1999 to 21% in 2012. • The number of people in drug treatment increased 60% from 1998 to 2011, from 23,600 to 38,000. It's fair to visit Singapore and Malaysia where the drug problem is non- existent. These nations make it clear to all who 'visit' that the penalty for dealing or using drugs is death. The new Philippine president has sent the army into the hinterlands to shoot the drug trade rats on sight! The drug epidemic dictates that extreme measures are the only way to combat this infection. Liberals are a lot like Slinkys, they're good for nothing but they bring a smile to your face as you shove them down the stairs.
No they won't - drugs and drug sellers have been around for generations now, but only a rabid fringe is worked up about them. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
Comments (41 - 60) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestOf course, the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to ban or regulate marijuana within the borders of a state, despite the opinion of the politically connected lawyers on the Supreme Court. If you doubt this, ask yourself why it took a constitutional amendment to institute federal alcohol prohibition.
First, the fact that marijuana is used “for personal medical purposes on the advice of a physician” cannot itself serve as a distinguishing factor. Id., at 1229. The CSA designates marijuana as contraband for any purpose; in fact, by characterizing marijuana as a Schedule I drug, Congress expressly found that the drug has no acceptable medical uses. Moreover, the CSA is a comprehensive regulatory regime specifically designed to regulate which controlled substances can be utilized for medicinal purposes, and in what manner. Indeed, most of the substances classified in the CSA “have a useful and legitimate medical purpose.” 21 U. S. C. § 801(1). Thus, even if respondents are correct that marijuana does have accepted medical uses and thus should be redesignated as a lesser schedule drug, [37] the CSA would still impose controls beyond what is required by California law. The CSA requires manufacturers, physicians, pharmacies, and other handlers of controlled substances to comply with statutory and regulatory provisions mandating registration with the DEA, compliance with specific production quotas, security controls to guard against diversion, recordkeeping and reporting obligations, and prescription requirements. See §§ 821–830; 21 CFR § 1301 et seq. (2004). Furthermore, the dispensing of new drugs, even when doctors approve their use, must await federal approval. United States v. Rutherford, 442 U. S. 544 (1979). Accordingly, the mere fact that marijuana—like virtually every other controlled substance regulated by the CSA—is used for medicinal purposes cannot possibly serve to distinguish it from the core activities regulated by the CSA. Nor can it serve as an “objective marke[r]” or “objective facto[r]” to arbitrarily narrow the relevant class as the dissenters suggest, post, at 47 (opinion of O’Connor, J.); post, at 68 (opinion of Thomas, J.). More fundamentally, if, as the principal dissent contends, the personal cultivation, possession, and use of marijuana for medicinal purposes is beyond the “‘outer limits’ of Congress’ Commerce Clause authority,” post, at 42 (opinion of O’Connor, J.), it must also be true that such personal use of marijuana (or any other homegrown drug) for recreational purposes is also beyond those “‘outer limits,’” whether or not a State elects to authorize or even regulate such use. Justice Thomas’ separate dissent suffers from the same sweeping implications. That is, the dissenters’ rationale logically extends to place any federal regulation (including quality, prescription, or quantity controls) of any locally cultivated and possessed controlled substance for any purpose beyond the “‘outer limits’” of Congress’ Commerce Clause authority. One need not have a degree in economics to understand why a nationwide exemption for the vast quantity of marijuana (or other drugs) locally cultivated for personal use (which presumably would include use by friends, neighbors, and family members) may have a substantial impact on the interstate market for this extraordinarily popular substance. The congressional judgment that an exemption for such a significant segment of the total market would undermine the orderly enforcement of the entire regulatory scheme is entitled to a strong presumption of validity. Indeed, that judgment is not only rational, but “visible to the naked eye,” Lopez, 514 U. S., at 563, under any commonsense appraisal of the probable consequences of such an openended exemption.
#2. To: hondo68 (#0)
"Of course, the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to ban or regulate marijuana within the borders of a state, despite the opinion of the politically connected lawyers on the Supreme Court."
#3. To: hondo68 (#0)
"If you doubt this, ask yourself why it took a constitutional amendment to institute federal alcohol prohibition."
#4. To: nolu chan (#1)
"FBI statistics show that law enforcement makes approximately 99 of 100 marijuana arrests under state, not federal law."
#5. To: nolu spam, misterwhite, Y'ALL (#1)
(Edited)
Of course, that is utter bullshit. Possession of any amount remains a federal crime and Ohio can do nothing to change that. Federal law and international treaties are supreme --
#6. To: misterwhite (#2)
The federal government is using their constitutional authority to ban and regulate marijuana within the borders of a state according to the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court
#7. To: Hank Rearden (#6)
"Just one of thousands of bullshit laws to be ignored."
#8. To: tpaine, misterwhite (#5)
Only federal laws made "in pursuance thereof" (see Art VI) are constitutional -- despite what "armchair lawyer wannabes say".
#9. To: nolu chan (#8)
"The Court says what the law is."
#10. To: nolu chan, tpaine, misterwhite, Hank Rearden, enumerated powers, *Bill of Rights-Constitution* (#8)
Federal power is not derived from or diminished by the pronouncements of potheads on the internet.
Castle(C), Stein(G), Johnson(L)
#11. To: misterwhite (#4)
BUT, if Ohio is going to legalize production and distribution of marijuana, that's where the federal government gets involved. If the number of growers, dealers and traffickers increases in Ohio, so will the number of federal arrests -- assuming the justice department is allowed to do so.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Rohrabacher
14 SEC. 537. None of the funds made available in this
15 Act to the Department of Justice may be used, with re-
16 spect to any of the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona,
17 California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida,
18 Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana,
19 Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
20 Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire,
21 New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina,
22 Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South
23 Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia,
24 Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, or with respect to
25 the District of Columbia, Guam, or Puerto Rico, to pre-
2 authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation
3 of medical marijuana. 4 SEC. 538. None of the funds made available under
5 this Act may be used by the Department of Justice to
6 prevent a State from implementing its own State laws that
7 authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation
8 of industrial hemp, as defined in section 7606 of the Agri-
9 cultural Act of 2014 (7 U.S.C. 5940). 1. S.2837 — 114th Congress (2015-2016) Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017 Sponsor: Sen. Shelby, Richard C. [R-AL] (Introduced 04/21/2016) Cosponsors: (0) Committees: Senate - Appropriations Committee Reports: S. Rept. 114-239
Senate Calendar #432, DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE AND JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2017
Section 537 prohibits the Department of Justice from preventing
certain States from implementing State laws regarding the use of
medical marijuana.
to prevent States from implementing laws related to a certain
section of the Agricultural Act of 2014.
#12. To: hondo68 (#10)
And their bosses, We The People, give the black robed tyrants the finger in our quest for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
#13. To: nolu sham dreams on, --- (#12)
(Edited)
--- "The government makes the laws, and they decide what is constitutional."
#14. To: hondo68 (#10)
Gov bootlickers on the internet don't make illegal legislation, law.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#15. To: tpaine (#13)
SCOTUS issues opinions on constitutionality in contested cases, - opinions that are NOT law, and can be reversed.
Good law is the concept in jurisprudence that a legal decision is still valid. That is, that a decision has not been overturned (during an appeal) or otherwise rendered obsolete (such as by a change in the underlying law)
Remember, that you need to take into account the jurisdiction of your case and the cases citing your case in order to determine if your case is still good law.
Case Overview uses signals to indicate what kind of treatment a case has received and whether it can be relied on as good law.
A decision from an appellate court is binding on courts beneath it (inferior courts) when those courts decide similar issues. But your case law research does not end simply because you've found an appellate court case that appears to support your argument. Even a case directly on point may lose its authority if
School Dist. of Grand Rapids v. Ball, 473 U.S. 373, addressing a "Shared Time" program, are no longer good law. Pp. 215-236. (a) Under Rufo, supra, at 384, Rule 60(b)(5) — which states that, "upon such terms … whether the Court's later Establishment Clause cases have so undermined Aguilar that it is no longer good law. Pp. 215-218. (b) To answer that question, it is necessary to understand the rationale upon which … ask that we explicitly recognize what our more recent cases already dictate: Aguilar is no longer good law.
… system in Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639 (1990), and had stated in Apprendi that Walton remained good law.
… argues that Collins v. Lockhart, 754 F.2d 258 (CA8), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1013 (1985), is still good law despite our decision in Lowenfield v. Phelps, 484 U.S. 231 (1988), and urges us to decide this question … certiorari," we decide that question based on the Eighth Circuit's view that Collins is no longer good law. Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc., 504 U.S. 451, 465-466, n. 10 (1992).
… this Court holding that a sentencing judge may consider virtually any reliable information still good law when juries, not judges, are required to determine the matter? See, e.g., United States v. Watts …
… questions: first, whether the rule of Frye v. United States, 54 App.D.C. 46, 293 F. 1013 (1923), remains good law after the enactment of the Federal Rules of Evidence; and second, if Frye remains valid, whether …
… held that persons advocating a certain practice may be denied the right to vote, it is no longer good law. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) (per curiam). To the extent it held that the groups designated … that polygamy can be criminalized, and those engaging in that crime deprived of the vote, remains good law.
… indecent or would not be acted upon." It explicitly ruled that "any such interpretation is no longer good law." Ibid., ¶ 12. It "clarif[ied] . . . that the mere fact that specific words or phrases are not sustained … of inconsistent "prior Commission and staff action" and explicitly disavowing them as "no longer good law." Golden Globes Order, 19 FCC Rcd., at 4980, ¶ 12. To be sure, the (superfluous) explanation in … in light of the Golden Globes Order's specific declaration that its prior rulings were no longer good law, 19 FCC Rcd., at 4980, ¶ 12, and the Remand Order's disavowal of those staff rulings and Commission …
… decisions in Irwin, Brockamp, and Beggerly, we hold that our prior holding in Bovell is no longer good law.
More importantly, however, the decision in Idlewild cannot be good law after Coopers, supra.
Virginia's rule is reasonable, and has been accepted as good law against the backdrop of a general state sufficiency standard no less stringent than the Jackson … is the thief who took them, and it should come as no surprise that the rule had been accepted as good law against the backdrop of a general state sufficiency standard no less stringent than that of Jackson …
… rule in this area and the doctrine and principles of stare decisis indicate that the rule remains good law. Pp. 314-318. (d) The underlying issue here is one that Congress may be better qualified to resolve … conclusion that this evolution indicates that the Commerce Clause ruling of Bellas Hess is no longer good law.
… perverse for this Court to rely upon a Court of Appeals decision for a proposition that is no longer good law within the Circuit.
#16. To: Deckard (#14)
I give the finger to bleating sheep like Galin and nolu sham.
#17. To: Deckard (#14)
I give the finger...
#18. To: Gatlin (#17)
(Edited)
I give the finger...
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#19. To: Deckard (#18)
(Edited)
I give the finger...
#20. To: Gatlin (#19)
It is unfortunate that is all you have to contribute.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#21. To: Deckard (#20)
#22. To: Gatlin (#21)
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#23. To: misterwhite (#7)
(Edited)
You mean rather than petition Congress to change it? Can we do that with any law or just the laws you don't like?
#24. To: nolu chan, outs himself, -- again. (#15)
-- "The government makes the laws, and they decide what is constitutional."
Tpaine, Chief Justice of the Imaginary Patriot Supreme Court has spoken. It is obvious that when he speaks, nobody that matters listens. --- SCOTUS and other courts use the term good law rather frequently. Either they are all wrong, or tpaine is wrong. --- The tpaine pronouncement also implies that Westlaw and Lexis- Nexis do not know what they are doing or what they are talking about.
Precedential court holdings are good law. They remain good law until they are no longer good law.
tpaine has an amazing observation that SCOTUS opinions can be reversed. How true. And statute laws can be struck down, repealed, abrogated, or derogated. Any provision of the Constitution, including amendments, may be repealed. There is no law that cannot be changed or repealed.
#25. To: hondo68 (#0)
#26. To: tpaine (#24)
Good law for the big govt establishment, and its bootlickers, like you, nolu.
#27. To: nolu chan, tpaine (#26)
(Edited)
we derive our laws from internet crackpots like you
Castle(C), Stein(G), Johnson(L)
#28. To: nolu chan (#26)
tpaine has an amazing observation that SCOTUS opinions can be reversed. How true. And statute laws can be struck down, repealed, abrogated, or derogated. Any provision of the Constitution, including amendments, may be repealed. There is no law that cannot be changed or repealed.
All the courts are wrong and we derive our laws from internet crackpots like you. Suuuure we do.
#29. To: hondo68 (#27)
"jury of your peers".
#30. To: tpaine (#28)
Our fundamental rights CANNOT be repealed.
#31. To: HomerBohn (#25)
so far has executed over 2,500 accused by some of being druggies.
I hope that America doesn't have to go through that
#32. To: nolu chan (#30)
Any part of the Constitution can be repealed. Such action does depend upon the approval of any crackpot on the internet.
#33. To: nolu chan (#30)
Any part of the Constitution can be repealed.
#34. To: tpaine (#32)
Our fundamental rights CANNOT be repealed. They are inalienable, thus any attempt to repeal them would be null and void from inception.
#35. To: ConservingFreedom (#31)
In America we don't do extrajudicial executions - thank God.
#36. To: nolu chan (#34)
#37. To: nolu chan, declares he has no principles. (#34)
There are no inalienable rights. Amdt 5 explicitly provides for capital punishment.
When they execute some halfwit like you, they take away your supposedly inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit happiness. The only thing you can pursue is a dirt nap. --- The Constitution is the highest law. The Declaration of Independence has never been a law.
#38. To: HomerBohn (#35)
Before it's all over, America will be clamoring for 'judicial' but swift executions of all who sell drugs! Users get six months to change their habits and if they don't they get to join the rat who sold them the poison.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#39. To: Deckard (#38)
#40. To: HomerBohn (#35)
Before it's all over, America will be clamoring for 'judicial' but swift executions of all who sell drugs!
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]