cannabisnews.com: It's a Thorny Issue, but Not a Federal Case 





It's a Thorny Issue, but Not a Federal Case 
Posted by CN Staff on December 01, 2004 at 07:36:03 PT
Editorial Opinion
Source: Missoulian
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday tackled a California case expected to determine whether that state, Montana, and nine other states have the right to legalize limited use of marijuana, as prescribed by doctors, for patients suffering from certain diseases. Montana voters last month approved an initiative legalizing so-called medical marijuana.Too much of the discussion of this case focuses on the merits of marijuana as the pain reliever of last resort and the potential medical marijuana has to complicate the government's war on drugs.
The Supreme Court needn't trouble itself with those questions. Instead, the court should turn to the Bill of Rights and take a long-overdue look at the 10th Amendment.The language couldn't be clearer:"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."You don't have to be a constitutional scholar to notice that the U.S. Constitution doesn't grant the federal government the power to overrule the states on this matter. U.S. Justice Department attorneys argue that the authority exists under the Interstate Commerce Clause - a provision in the Constitution that says the federal government may regulate interstate commerce. However, none of the medical marijuana laws allow marijuana to be transported across state lines. The incidental use of marijuana as prescribed by doctors to relieve pain hardly qualifies as an economic undertaking. The Commerce Clause shouldn't apply where there is no commerce.American government was based on a theory of federalism in which the states created the national government, assigning it certain powers but reserving the right to run most of their own affairs. The concept of states' rights is implicit in the Constitution; concerned that might not be enough, the founding generation ratified the 10th Amendment to make the limitation of federal authority over the states explicit. The lines of authority between the states and federal government have blurred over the years, but the 10th Amendment hasn't been repealed. Not yet, anyway.The importance of the medical marijuana case extends far beyond the drug issue. The larger question is whether there are any limits to federal power. If federal authority supercedes that of the states on this matter, then it's going to be hard to find an instance where federal authority doesn't trump the rights and powers of states.Summary: Medical marijuana case really is about the limit - or limitlessness - of federal authority over state matters.Source: Missoulian (MT) Published: Wednesday, December 1, 2004Copyright: 2004 Missoulian Contact: newsdesk missoulian.com Website http://www.missoulian.com/ Related Articles & Web Sites:Raich vs. Ashcroft http://www.angeljustice.org/Angel Raich v. Ashcroft Newshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/raich.htmMedical Marijuana vs. The War on Drugs http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19932.shtmlPot and Federal Powerhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19930.shtmlMMJ Case Puts Supreme Court in Curious Spothttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19929.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Post Comment