Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jbw97361
the problem is that there is a FEDERAL LAW that says no marijuana. The court is simply upholding the FEDERAL LAW. IF you dont like it, change the law then. Judges aren't there to make laws, only to uphold the constitution.
Personally, I think that the Fed court system should be kept out of state laws and decisions about them.
|
Ah, but that is the problem, intrastate and interstate are 2 totally differing aspects in the Constitution.
The Constitution makes clear items crossing state lines are under federal jurisdiction, items staying within statelines are solely left to the state. While there maybe precedent the SC has overturned themselves in the past (it is part of the "living" Constitution that allows the courts to correct themselves as times change). The precedent setting case in question is an excuse, IMHO, to find a reason to side the way the administration so desired. The excuse that this medicinal marijuana will cross statelines and thus become a federal issue is bullshit. I am sure these states have controls to show exactly how much is grown and how much is consumed.
What several people on this board fail to recognize is BOTH sides take control and expand federal rule over and beyond what is reasonable, neither side is perfect and neither side is totally evil, (my stance is I prefer left of center socially and right of center fiscally). I find it hypocritical to support a president that supported this ruling and in the next breath say the president's party is the one supporting states rights. So to claim one side is truly more accepting of state's rights falls on deaf ears here. Case in point, the Reagan blackmailing in the 80's of Ohio, Louisianna and the 3rd state I can't remember, and the blackmailing to get states to accept federal law where federal law has no jurisdiction still goes on with Bush.
As for the 2 bills mentioned (The Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment and "Truth in Trials Act"), while they maybe sponsored by GOP, I will be thoroughly amazed if the GOP Congress passes them or Bush signs them into law. And I would be interested what are truly in those bills and how they pertain to this case without interfering with state rights or the voters voices.
Now my question is, if the GOP is so for state rights, then why was it Ashcroft that made this a federal case, while Reno and Clinton allowed it to go on without any interference? Which party in that scenario sounds more supporting of the will of the people in this particular case?