Conflicting Smoke Signals

Recently, the US Attorney General, Jeff Session declared that he and his DoJ would reverse course on the doctrine set forth under Obama and Holder and restart enforcement of federal drug laws as they pertain to marijuana. This, frankly, leaves me feeling ambivalent since one could say that I’m getting conflicting smoke signals… and neither of them have anything directly to do with either medical or recreational use of cannabis.

To me this is an example of federal overreach resulting in the Constitution being in conflict with itself at this time. I find that the entirety of the federal drug laws, except those that cover importation, exportation, or interstate trafficking, to be violations of the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution. However, the Take Care Clause (Section 3, Clause 5) of Article II of the Constitution requires that the Executive shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. In other words, the Constitution requires the Executive branch to enforce the laws set forth by the Legislative branch unless and until the Judicial branch declares said laws to be null and void.

That conflict is what’s making me ambivalent about this whole thing, not my personal opinions of either medical or recreational use of marijuana.

Related Reading:

Marijuana Business: How to Open and Successfully Run a Marijuana Dispensary and Grow Facility
California Gun Laws: A Guide to State and Federal Firearm Regulations (2019 Sixth Edition)
Davis's Drug Guide for Nurses
The Tenth Amendment and State Sovereignty: Constitutional History and Contemporary Issues
The Scratch & Sniff Book of Weed

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Will AZ Geld Obama?

az-castration-tools It looks rather more likely than not that Arizona will geld Obama or, at least emasculate his ability to harm Arizona through his barely quasi-legal Executive Orders or directive from his DoJ. Last week on March 10, 2015 Arizona’s House of Representatives voted in favor of House Bill 2368 (HB 2368), which bans the use of AZ personnel or monies to enforce, administer, or cooperate with any of them.

So, politically speaking in Arizona, it looks probable that Obama’s testicles will be tied off, wither and rot, and fall off.

Obama supporters and Statists, have quickly put up the spurious and ignorant argument that HB 2368 violates the US Constitution’s, Article VI, Clause 2 (the “Supremacy Clause”):

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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

But even a passing knowledge of SCOTUS jurisprudence and Constitutional Law shows that Arizona’s HB 2368 in no way violates the Supremacy Clause because, supremacy or not, the SCOTUS via the “Anti-Commandeering Doctrine” set forth in their 1842 Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 1981 Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc., 1992 New York v. United States, and 1997 Printz v. United States decisions has unequivocally stated that the federal government cannot legally commandeer legislative processes of the States by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program by demanding that those States’ governments to undertake targeted, affirmative, coercive duties.

Oh please pay special attention to Prigg v. Pennsylvania, as it stated that the federal government could not force states to implement or carry out the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793.

In other, simpler words, the Federal government cannot legally compel any of the States to spend their resources in the furtherance of any federal mandate, regulation, or even law. The Supremacy Clause ensures that the States can’t contravene federal edicts but the Anti-Commandeering Doctrine requires that the federal government enforce those edicts with federal resources instead of compelling the States to use theirs to do so.

Hence, in point of legal fact, Arizona didn’t need to limit HB 2368 to merely those edicts spawned within the Executive. The bill would be equally valid on resting upon proven, sound legal grounds if it had include legitimate federal laws enacted by Congress as well.

Now it just remains to be seen how many other states shall go reaching for their gelding knives or similar tools…

Related Reading:

Scientific Journal
AP® U.S. Government & Politics Crash Course Book + Online (Advanced Placement (AP) Crash Course)
Theories of Federalism: A Reader
A History of the Supreme Court
CLEP® American Government Book + Online (CLEP Test Preparation)

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Obama Vs. The States

Obama, the boy who would be king, has always had a problem with authority that doesn’t stem from himself, his handlers and overseers, or his direct underlings in the Executive.

Ghetto King Obama

Nowhere is this more obvious than when he’s dealing with the several States and the governments demanding that he, to at least some extent, abide by the 10th Amendment.

Louisiana’s Governor, Bobby Jindal ran into this attitude recently.

“When we met with him as governors, I asked him, why don’t you give the states more influence on accrediting higher education, to bring more competition in the marketplace?” Jindal said.

“Here’s the insulting thing: In a room full of Democratic and Republican governors, basically, in so many words he said, ‘We can’t trust states. We can’t trust governors to protect their own people.'”

Of course, to be fair, this goes a bit beyond and outside of Obama’s authoritarian streak. It’s also a cultural disconnect. The question of giving the states more influence on accrediting higher education smacks of States’ Rights; Obama is – by his choice – a Black; and Blacks have been inculcated to believe that States’ Rights is just a code phrase for racism.

Really! Expecting Obama to behave differently or better would be culturally insensitive and would be ignoring the weight of over 150 years of Blacks being taught to be against the several states having any level of authority or autonomy. 😉

Related Reading:

Wealth, Poverty and Politics
Little Leaders: Bold Women in Black History (Vashti Harrison)
On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century
Examples & Explanations: Constitutional Law: National Power and Federalism (Examples & Explanations)
The Fragility of Freedom: Why subsidiarity matters

Tags: | | | | | | | |