Dr & Lawyer couple get 5 years prison, judge says "its a terrible day"

[hautemomma]

Not exactly your hardened drug dealers/criminals..... Pair get prison in pot case - sacbee.com

[Luke]

I actually know both. as I worked for the attorney back in the mid-90s when I first moved back to Sacramento. I haven't talked to them in several years (before all this happened) but as I understand it they believed they were doing the right thing under state law and the the medical marijuana proposition passed. There problem is that they were zealous advocates and became cause celebre in the medical marijuana community, which drew the interests of the feds, who have shown zero tolerance for state law on the matter.

What is most interesting is that a federal judge actually didn't just go along with the program and lay the hammer to them under federal law, doing everything it appears he could do to minimize the impact pending appeal.

Alas, I don't hold out much hope for them even in the Ninth Circuit because the U.S. Supreme Court came down a few years ago in an Oakland cannabis club case saying that federal law preempts all state law on the matter.

[feistylady]

so, depending on whether the Feds agree with what the state is doing depends on whether they want states rights to prevail. What is the point for states to have laws if the Feds can over rule if they disagree with it. In this couples case, they were doing a good service for people who were in horrible pain and couldn't get pain meds, or those pain meds reacted badly to them. Our justice system is so screwed up sometimes.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by feistylady

so, depending on whether the Feds agree with what the state is doing depends on whether they want states rights to prevail. What is the point for states to have laws if the Feds can over rule if they disagree with it. In this couples case, they were doing a good service for people who were in horrible pain and couldn't get pain meds, or those pain meds reacted badly to them. Our justice system is so screwed up sometimes.

Without going into a long dissertation, the basic gist of the federal government argument is that they have pre-empted the field with regard to regulation of drugs, including marijuana, and as marijuana is verboten under federal law, possession and sale is illegal notwithstanding state laws to the contrary under the Supremacy Clause in Article VI, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which states:

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, and any thing in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

[Wilbur]

And of course the flip side argument, which would be WAY too tedious to articulate, is that the 10th amendment

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."

reserves to the states all powers not given explicitly to the federal government,that there is nothing in the Constitution giving Congress power over such an activity if it does not cross state lines, and that over the past 50 years the Supreme Court has made a mockery of the intended scope of the Commerce Clause as a means of authorizing the extension of federal supremacy into areas which, if Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton or Madison heard about it, would send them screaming from the room with their hair on fire.

The new guys on the Court claim to be strict constructionist conservatives. Perhaps one day we will find out whether they truly understand the original intent of the Tenth Amendment.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by Wilbur

The new guys on the Court claim to be strict constructionist conservatives. Perhaps one day we will find out whether they truly understand the original intent of the Tenth Amendment.

It's been way too long since I actually studied Constitutional Law, but my recollection is every court, liberal or conservative, conveniently has found away to ignore this Amendment.

Of course, as I recall, pretty much everything the feds do is claimed to be tied to the Commerce Clause in Article II, section 8, and, thus nothing is really reserved to the States or the people.

[Maximus]

Originally Posted by Wilbur

And of course the flip side argument, which would be WAY too tedious to articulate, is that the 10th amendment reserves to the states all powers not given explicitly to the federal government,that there is nothing in the Constitution giving Congress power over such an activity if it does not cross state lines, and that over the past 50 years the Supreme Court has made a mockery of the intended scope of the Commerce Clause as a means of authorizing the extension of federal supremacy into areas which, if Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton or Madison heard about it, would send them screaming from the room with their hair on fire.

The new guys on the Court claim to be strict constructionist conservatives. Perhaps one day we will find out whether they truly understand the original intent of the Tenth Amendment.

After over a century of expansion of the Commerce Clause, the conservative Rehnquist court began to narrow it's reach. Some of FDR's New Deal programs were initially struck down over the clause, but the Supreme Court changed it's tune after FDR threatened to stack the court. I expect this Roberts court to be consistent with the Rehnquist court, despite the efforts of Justices Breyer, Ginsburg and Souter.

That doesn't mean states get to run around as little mini-nations with their own set of laws, much as they did under the Articles of Confederation where many were even printing their own money. In this case, federal drugs laws supercede state drugs laws. These people knew this, or should have known it.

I don't think conservatives Alito or Chief Justice Roberts have described themselves as "strict constructionist" judges though they look more closely at original intent than does their liberal bretheren. Strict constructionists are often seen as judges who don't look past the four corners of the Constitution itself. Not even Scalia or Thomas do that.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by Maximus

In this case, federal drugs laws supercede state drugs laws.

And the basis for federal regulation of drugs is the Commerce Clause.

[Wilbur]

Originally Posted by Joaquin Murieta

And the basis for federal regulation of drugs is the Commerce Clause.

Because, the USSC once said, even a farmer just growing some corn on his own land to feed his own hogs who will never cross state lines dead or alive, "affects Commerce between the States" and thus is subject to being told whether and when he can grow corn and how much as part of the commodity market manipulations of the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture.

Which ought to be based in Moscow, Idaho.