It started in South Carolina over a century and a half ago, but now it’s in California.
[Sunday-morning update]
Someone asked in comments what gave the federal government authority to outlaw a plant. It was two awful SCOTUS decisions.
20 thoughts on “The Seditious Democrats”
Comments are closed.
From the article: “And not just on immigration; California also just became the largest state to legalize marijuana, setting up a separate but no less serious conflict with federal drug laws.”
And which part of the Constitution authorizes such laws? Recall they needed an amendment to Federally outlaw alcohol.
I’ve always felt the BATF associated agencies were constitutionally questionable. Right now I’m being entertained by the large number of progs who has suddenly discovered the virtue of states rights and the Tenth Amendment.
Yes, and that is why I thought it a poor choice for the author to link with the issue of sanctuary status. But that got me wondering if there is any constitutional or even legal requirements for state and local LEO to cooperate with the feds on immigration control. Cooperation is desirable, but is it legally mandated?
No, it’s not legally mandated, but Congress can withhold funding from localities that refuse to.
Yes, that is the tactic they used to force the 55 mph speed limit on the states.
Two disastrous SCOTUS decisions, first Wickard, and more recently Raich.
Thanks, Rand. I had to look those up. For anyone else interested in a summary:
* Wickard was a 1942 decision which upheld the Feds’ right to limit a farmer’s wheat production (as part of a federal crop support program), even though the farmer wasn’t selling the wheat and instead using it for animal feed on his own farm, and thus not explicitly partaking in interstate commerce. The decision “dramatically increased the regulatory power of the federal government.”
* Raich was a 2005 decision which upheld the Feds’ right to enforce the Controlled Substances Act against medical marijuana users who, with a prescription and in a state which permitted medical marijuana use, home-grew marijuana for their own consumption. Wickard was used as a precedent despite the plaintiff’s argument that home-growing aided the federal government’s goal of reducing the interstate commerce of marijuana.
“and thus not explicitly partaking in interstate commerce.”
I would word this instead as “and thus explicitly not partaking…”. It’s clearer that way. If one is feeling sarcastic when explaining this horrible case, one might use, instead, the word “obviously”.
But if a state wants to enforce immigration laws then supremacy kicks in and they are forbidden.
The pot thing is easy to solve, pass legalization at the federal level. All the people wanting to ignore the law as it is rather than change the law need to think about the future implications.
The issue of federal nullification was decisively settled by Lincoln, Grant, political will and force of arms.
Apparently it wasn’t. If it was the president wouldn’t be tiptoeing with CA. Trump would be impeached if he did the right thing which is to send in the troops and arrest everyone breaking the law.
Allowing sedition to fester just takes us further from the rule of law. Let them have their day in court. If we are no longer a country, let’s make it official so we can stop pretending.
They say we can’t deport illegals from the country. Can we deport them from just one state? And charge anyone harboring illegals with treason.
Nullification is a dead letter. It’s been established that fighting the given issue via the Supreme Court is the proper avenue.
States rights are related to, but distinct from the theory of nullification. SE Morison pointed out more than once that the weaker side resorted to States Rights claims in the same manner as resorting to threats of secession.
Recall that the New England states gave serious thought to secession during the war with Britain, and in reaction to the Embargo Act. Sixty years later the same states were vehement in their support of the Union.
I must strongly disagree that violating Federal law is treason. A crime, yes, but not treason. It’s ironic that so many conservatives were dedicated Federalists until states started legalizing or decriminalizing pot.
Let’s let the courts work through the process. It’s slow and occasionally infuriating, but it’s the best way let these issues work their way out.
Treason: .the crime of betraying one’s country
A crime, yes, but not treason.
What is giving political power to and protecting illegal invaders if not treason? Especially when the point is to usurp power for themselves?
Federalism runs into problems when there are national laws that take precedence over what a state decides to do.
The federal government has been very lax in enforcing the law and it has allowed the country to see several different examples of legalization in action. So why can’t the congresspeople in pot states get together and write a bill?
Personally, I think they need to go the route of CO and allow people to grow their own rather than the WA route of government controlled cartels with sky high regressive taxes.
This also strongly suggest that federal law should be limited so that conflicts with state law don’t happen. If conflicts do happen then stronger scrutiny of the fed law should be considered.
The founders understood brevity.
Well, I would support them seceding if they want. In the meantime I would think that they need to obey federal law.
I would favor legalizing marijuana so that Session would stop whatever crazy crusade he just started.
He didn’t really start anything, he was just undoing another unconstitutional Obama action.
California is hugely important to national defense. I endorse letting them leave the country (citizen or not) w/o taking CA with them.
From what I understand, he just allowed local federal prosecutors to act how they see fit on the issue?
It worked with the generals against ISIS and it’s exactly what an executive is supposed to do presuming he can trust his subordinates to do their jobs.
On topics like this, it would be fun to bash old Admiral Gerrib. He was a big supporter of the federal governments abuse of the Commerce Clause.
Then again, so is most of the State of California. Not only does the Commerce Clause and SCOTUS responsible for the federal government ability to regulate drugs. But it is the same decisions, clause, and federal agency that determines a certain weed to be illegal that also gives Californian’s the precious food label warnings.