|
|
| On States’ Rights To Protect Life and Health |
|
Posted by CN Staff on June 18, 2006 at 22:32:36 PT By James Plummer Source: LewRockwell.com 
USA -- Louisiana has now joined South Dakota in moving to outlaw nearly all abortions after Gov. Kathleen Blanco signed Saturday a measure that would only allow the procedure when the life of the mother is in danger or severely threatened. The law would let Dakotans do the heavy legal lifting by not going into effect until and if Roe v. Wade is overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. Conservatives have long asserted that Roe improperly seized power from the states to regulate abortion. Pro-choice cynics have asserted that this federalist position is one of convenience and not of principle. But those Congressional states-rights champions will have a chance this month to prove their commitment to both states' rights and pro-life issues. But will they rise to the challenge? The challenge in question is the so-called Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment to the State-Science-Justice-Commerce spending bill. This amendment would forbid federal funds to be used for Justice Department operations which arrest doctors and patients who prescribe and ingest cannabis (marijuana) under the protection of state law. This measure embodies the core principle of American federalism as codified in the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Tenth Amendment clarifies that any governmental powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the States. Laws regarding the use of cannabis for medical purposes fall under those powers reserved to the States, particularly when the plant is grown and consumed within the same state. A plant with a wholly intrastate life cycle puts its regulation under the power of that individual State itself, not under the commerce clause in Article I of the U.S. Constitution. The United States Supreme Court in 1995 upheld this Constitutional principle in United States v. Lopez, striking down a federal gun law barring anyone from carrying a firearm near a school. The Supreme Court found Congressional justification of the law to be a twisted interpretation of and broad overreach under Article I of the U.S. Constitution. Justice Thomas wrote in his concurring ruling on Lopez: "The Constitution not only uses the word "commerce" in a narrower sense than our case law might suggest, it also does not support the proposition that Congress has authority over all activities that "substantially affect" interstate commerce. … Our construction of the scope of congressional authority has the additional problem of coming close to turning the Tenth Amendment on its head. Our case law could be read to reserve to the United States all powers not expressly prohibited by the Constitution. … This test, if taken to its logical extreme, would give Congress a "police power" over all aspects of American life." However, in 2005, when the question was weeds rather than guns, the Supreme Court changed course. In Raich v. Ashcroft, the Court said that federal regulations of cannabis pre-empted state laws protecting a patient’s right to use cannabis. Justice O’Connor, joined by Justices Rehnquist and Thomas, wrote in dissent that the majority’s ruling in Raich was "irreconcilable" with Lopez. This stunning reversal from Lopez to Raich seems prima facie to be political, rather than grounded in sound Constitutional reasoning. Enthralled by political preference as the judiciary may be, the Legislative Branch is still the first branch of the federal government in the U. S. Constitution. A decision by the Congress to move toward a more Constitutional policy in this area cannot be overruled by the Judicial Branch. Congress has moved to reassert this primacy in the wake of last year’s Kelo vs. New London ruling by the Supreme Court, which undermined the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee to property rights. Just as Congress can reassert a Fifth Amendment right to property in the wake of a Supreme Court ruling, so can Congress reassert states’ rights under the Tenth Amendment. As noted in the Raich dissent, "The States' core police powers have always included authority to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens." The States can protect the health and life of their citizens by legislating positive protection for the rights of individuals (as acknowledged in the Ninth Amendment) to provide for their own life and health. Whether it is firearms or plants, or both, that an individual American uses to protect his life and health, the federal government has no legal or moral right to seize those tools. The Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment provides a chance for Congress, particularly conservatives, to reaffirm that principle. Politicians who support the right of South Dakota (and other states) to craft criminal law and protect an individual right to life from the vagaries of the federal judiciary can prove their concern is one of principle and not political expediency by supporting this amendment. Complete Title: On States’ Rights To Protect Life and Health From the Federal Government James Plummer is Policy Director for Liberty Coalition. Source: LewRockwell.com (U.S. Web) CannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archives Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
| Comment #9 posted by FoM on June 19, 2006 at 13:58:42 PT |
| I'm glad it will be ok. It looked terrible on the news. We don't have flooding problems because we are on top of a big hill or small mountain whichever it is. We do hear about flooding in a city south of us when there is a lot of rain. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #8 posted by Toker00 on June 19, 2006 at 13:50:31 PT |
| We have rain for tonight and tomorrow, but as long as it doesn't come down like it did early this morning and mid-morning, we'll drain. We've got a break in the rain right now. The low isn't moving, it's lost from the jet stream. Poor little lost storm. Sunshine and fair skies predicted by Fri. All is well. For now. Toke. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #7 posted by FoM on June 19, 2006 at 10:05:54 PT |
| They said more rain is coming later today. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #6 posted by FoM on June 19, 2006 at 09:59:02 PT |
| Right now CNN and MSNBC are talking about the flooding and showing pictures. It looks like New Orleans from aerial shots. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #5 posted by Toker00 on June 19, 2006 at 09:50:41 PT |
| My wife couldn't go to work, but I can. It's common for feeder streets around Houston and this area to flood, but the Main streets are flooding, too. People's houses are taking water all up and down the Gulf Freeways, 59 and 45. It's happened before, so people are sort-of used to it. It's just the sheer volume of water in such a short time that makes it dangerous. This is the time when you see mostly Trucks on the road. Small cars just couldn't navigate this much water. Thanks for caring. Toke. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #4 posted by FoM on June 19, 2006 at 08:12:30 PT |
| I am watching the news on CNN and it looks like Houston is practically under water. I hope you and your family are OK. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #3 posted by mayan on June 19, 2006 at 06:07:41 PT |
| Work begins on global seed bank on Arctic island:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060619/ts_nm/environment_seedbank_dc GOT HEMP? [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #2 posted by mayan on June 19, 2006 at 05:20:26 PT |
| Tsar admits: we've lost the war on drugs:
http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=892852006 THE WAY OUT IS THE WAY IN... War on terror called failure - Another 9/11 `inevitable,' experts conclude: http://tinyurl.com/rbzzn Nexus Points Emerge For Potential Summer Attack: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/060606summerattack.htm Review: Loose Change Second Edition: http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/06/17/081853.php Unquestioned Answers: Nonconspiracy theorist David Ray Griffin takes aim at the official 9-11 story: http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060616221050157 FBI says, it has “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13664.htm [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #1 posted by Toker00 on June 19, 2006 at 03:50:37 PT |
| This seems to be the one that is either going to do it for smoked medical cannabis, or for the Federal Fascists. We need to do some very heavy concentration and praying on this one. We can't just allow Pharmaceutical cannabis. We have to have the whole plant, or some of us have nothing but the SOS, threat of prison. No one should be in prison for simply possessing or using this plant. No one should have to suffer or die to protect Pharma-profits. But it will continue to happen if this amendment fails. The choice is so very, very obvious. Give Nature back to the people! Don't Need No More Lies! Wage peace on war. END CANNABIS PROHIBITION NOW! [ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |