cannabisnews.com: County To Mull Joining Medical Marijuana Suit County To Mull Joining Medical Marijuana Suit Posted by CN Staff on February 02, 2006 at 06:48:15 PT By Jose Carvajal, Staff Writer Source: North County Times California -- Supervisor Jeff Stone wants Riverside County to join its neighbors to the north and south in attempting to overturn California's medical marijuana law.At Stone's urging, the Board of Supervisors is expected to discuss in closed session Tuesday whether to join San Diego and San Bernardino counties in suing the state over the 9-year-old "Compassionate Use Act" ---- Proposition 215 ---- which allows the "seriously ill" to obtain and use marijuana for medicinal purposes. Stone, a pharmacist, said Prop. 215 contradicts a federal law that classifies marijuana as an illegal drug."I believe that the federal law trumps the state law," Stone said. "All of the federal laws have to be equally or more adhered to because the federal laws supersede all other laws in the United States of America."San Diego County officials filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court on Jan. 20 making the same argument. It is believed to be the first lawsuit that seeks to overturn any of the medical marijuana laws approved by voters in 11 states.The suit argues that states have to bow to a federal law that makes all marijuana use illegal and says it has no medicinal value. It cites Article VI of the U.S. Constitution ---- known as the "Supremacy Clause" ---- which makes the Constitution and federal laws "the supreme law of the land.""The issue is, the state's asking the county to do something here that they know darn well is illegal," San Diego County Supervisor Bill Horn said at the time.It took a week for San Bernardino County supervisors to decide that they wanted to file their own lawsuit. It is expected that the two suits will be consolidated and that Riverside County's ---- if ultimately filed ---- would join them.Area medical marijuana advocates could not be reached for comment Wednesday.Stone said the lawsuit would ultimately settle what has been a confusing situation for counties, which have had to regulate medical marijuana use while questions regarding its legality have gone unanswered."Hopefully, this lawsuit will give the counties some guidelines as to how to move forward," he said.Rather than wait and see what happens with the suits filed by the other counties, Stone said Riverside County should jump in so that judges who decide the case can see that there are many counties in the state that are grappling with the issue.If the county goes ahead with the lawsuit, he said, it will not suspend a state-mandated identification card program that prevents someone from being arrested for possessing medical marijuana.Eighty-five cards have been issued through the program since it began in December, county public health officials said Wednesday.The Board will consider the matter Tuesday at the County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon St., Riverside.Source: North County Times (CA)Author: Jose Carvajal, Staff Writer Published: February 02, 2006Copyright: 2006 North County Times Contact: letters nctimes.comWebsite: http://www.nctimes.com/Related Articles:San Bernardino Joins SD County MJ Lawsuithttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21519.shtmlCounty Joins Medical Marijuana Lawsuithttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21518.shtmlMarijuana Advocates File Challenge To San Diego http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21513.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #32 posted by FoM on February 03, 2006 at 15:38:33 PT museman In the not to distant future we will need to look at how we will deal with boomers (I don't like the name boomers). We take up a quarter of the population. Some people will be healthy up to the end but others won't. Do we dump people in nursing homes or do we make a community to help them? It soon will be our responsibility and a time where what didn't happen can happen. [ Post Comment ] Comment #31 posted by museman on February 03, 2006 at 15:35:04 PT Heart of Gold Oh man.Made me cry, I'll gladly give up a little Caesars coin for that man's offering.I respect this magical musician so much. The bro stuck to his guns, and is still stickin'. I often fantasized getting to play with him. Neil Young for president in 2008 http://generation.no-ip.org [ Post Comment ] Comment #30 posted by museman on February 03, 2006 at 15:27:03 PT: FoM Community. That's the word that describes what I think we were all looking for, and a lot of us I think are still looking. If we had a bit more real community we might actually effect dynamic changes at ground zero, which is I believe family, and community levels.I do agree that the internet has opened up new possibilities. I mean here on this site you/we have a community of thought, idea, and opinions which are expressed by serious adamant folks (like me), easy going 'humor is the best policy' folks like runruff (- who is a funny guy let me tell you, and the crime being comitted against him, and the rest of us by proxy is evil. Those who justify this evil BY ANY MEANS are satan worshippers and demons by word, action, and deed.-). Dreamers can hang out next to Jokers and Tokers, Tales can be told, and information shared, all in good spirit, with the finest of intent. Community is a valuable pearl of great price, and not found just anywhere.This new medium that is bringing together like minded people in virtual communities like this one are, I do believe having an effect. We need to make sure that 'internet prohibition' doesn't become another battlefront for freedom. http://wholeearthfamily.org [ Post Comment ] Comment #29 posted by FoM on February 03, 2006 at 15:21:27 PT museman They updated the url for Heart of Gold. Neil dreams and I like to dream too. Heart Of Gold Movie [ Post Comment ] Comment #28 posted by FoM on February 03, 2006 at 14:59:11 PT museman Good ideas. I see in my mind a community where names of special song's or musicians line the community. Where music is valued and people can relate to one another. I don't mean living in a commune but a community. A community garden would be great and if someone is not able to help tend their portion of the garden someone will help them. A place where we are connected by the Internet. PS: Restored VW buses all painted pretty would help seniors to and from the doctor or stores. Smiley faces everywhere! [ Post Comment ] Comment #27 posted by museman on February 03, 2006 at 14:44:44 PT FoM Dream well, and dream often. Jimi Hendrix Blvd. What an idea!"Strawberry Fields" however for some reason makes me think that somewhere, sometime soon, a cemetary is going to be named that. Sorry. Hope I'm wrong.How about LSD Plaza, or Marijuana Motel?The John Lennon Freeway- hybrids or bio fuels only please -The New Space Shuttle; The U.S.S. Jim Morrison.The Janis Joplin Recycling Center.The Peoples Constitution of The United States Of America.yes dreaming is nice, and fun too...good thing they can't police that just yet, though I've heard some nasty rumors about remote viewing. http://wholeearthfamily.org [ Post Comment ] Comment #26 posted by FoM on February 03, 2006 at 14:11:20 PT museman I'm looking forward to reading your memoirs. My reasoning about Hippies is different. Mine is only in my mind. I know it didn't work but the idea was a good one. We will have many people from the 60s retiring in the next 10 or so years and then what? Will we all retire to Arizona or Florida or will communities be developed for us? I doubt I'll ever leave where I live but I can see in my minds eye that it would be a good thing. Streets named Jim Hendrix Boulevard and a park called Strawberry Fields. Now I'm dreaming but that's what I do best. [ Post Comment ] Comment #25 posted by museman on February 03, 2006 at 13:53:06 PT Hippy I am a hippy. For many mnay years I fought the association, because I didn't actually agree with most of the definitions. I grew my hair long because I subscribed to the philosophy of "The Nazarene" which had to do with the vanity of 'the cutting of hair', and the belief (which I still hold to) of the 'hairs on the head' being like spiritual antenna.I admit to the fact that my first attempt to grow my hair in 1969 was more an act of teen rebellion, and the fact that I was getting real tired of crewcuts.However after I got educated in reality by the US Navy, I chose to stop cutting my hair. Like Mr. Young, I also thought of my hair as my 'freedom flag.'True, I smoked pot, ate LSD, and listened to the music. When I got out of the Navy I spent several lost years looking for the rest of us. What I found was the Rainbow Family. After a few years of gatherings, I became less and less comfortable with the tag.As time went on the derelicts, junkies, and winos all had long hair, and the associations that normal 'strait' people made was to think of them as 'hippies.'The original definition comes from the 30's when the heroin junkies would shoot up in the 'hip.' Which is also the root of the word "Hip," as in 'cool.' So I never really wanted to be labeled as one. Several years ago I cut my hair, went to live in a different state, and kept my hair short for over three years, trying to get to know the community better. A local deputy sheriff out to make career advancement decided to raid my house, expecting to make 'the biggest marijuanna bust in the county's history.' He and his whole team were idiots, and to make a long story short, I kicked a** in the courtroom and they dropped the charges. However, at that point I figured the 'cat was out of the bag' and stopped cutting my hair again, because I realized that that was who I am.The funny thing was, that the entire community, most of whom are real cowboy types (not the So Ca Buck Owens clones) and only about 10% of the local population smoked herb, got behind me. The deputy, and two of the ones involved in the bust were transferred, and the Sheriff himself nearly lost the election for the first time in the 16 years he had been sheriff.It was then that I realized I would never cut my hair again for the rest of my life, and decided to go ahead and accept the fact that I was a 'hippy.'But I still don't like being lumped in with the '60s categories concerning hippies, even though I was present and accounted for, because I believe that the whole thing was a flash in the pan, a brief generational spasm where the boomer generation were following a handful of radical role models. Most of the masses eventually cut their hair and moved into mainstream society. I've made my opinins known about that.That url about hippies was nice, and after 40 some years, retrospection is rather easy, but I have different memories. I absolutely agree with the defintiion of what a hippy SHOULD be, but I never really met many who actually came close to the ideal.The stories told, and the books written are mostly so mythological, and usually written by old 'archons' from that time who are cashing in on their 'memoirs.' The stories that should be told about the far and few who stuck to their guns, and had amazing cosmic experiences and the awareness to go with it, are deliberately being downplayed and villified by the government, and the mainstream media.Which is why I began my own memoirs. I call it "I Hippy." Sometime in the months ahead I hope to feature it on my site. For free.Freedom is not for sale in my reality even if it is a #1 commodity in the American marketplace. http://terryhubbard.com [ Post Comment ] Comment #24 posted by FoM on February 02, 2006 at 17:13:20 PT whig Thanks for the video and lyrics. Very heavy! [ Post Comment ] Comment #23 posted by whig on February 02, 2006 at 17:04:30 PT FoM "We valued spiritual depth, which we referred to as "heavy." We admired one another for being happy. We admired those who offered selfless service or peaceful resolution of conflict.We wanted a spirituality that actually caused you to grow as a person, not one in which people attended religious gatherings for social status. We wanted to be guided by our own Inner Spirits, rather than by priests."http://tinyurl.com/dpylbhttp://lyrics.rare-lyrics.com/K/Kate-Bush/Them-Heavy-People.html [ Post Comment ] Comment #22 posted by mayan on February 02, 2006 at 17:00:54 PT Go Figure Stone, a pharmacist, said Prop. 215 contradicts a federal law that classifies marijuana as an illegal drug.A pharmacist, eh? Folks will see right through his motives. Isn't it strange how many pharmacists and ex-pharmacists there are in our government? At least he has a job to fall back on when he gets ousted! [ Post Comment ] Comment #21 posted by FoM on February 02, 2006 at 16:19:05 PT Sam When I say my heart is like a hippie I don't look or dress like one. It's almost a political way of looking at how things can be different. It's a way of thinking not how we dress. I was kidding about the stinkin phoneheads but they look down on us and it is wrong because they aren't better then anyone. What Did the Hippies Want? By Alicia Bay Laurel http://www.aliciabaylaurel.comWe wanted intimacy--not a neighborhood where you didn't know anyone on the block, or you competed, kept up with the Joneses. A hunter-gatherer or early agricultural community meant that people lived, worked and sought deeper contact with the holy spirit as a group, and they all knew one another, from cradle to grave. I used to call my hippie friendships "a horizontal extended family," as opposed to the ancient tribal extended family, which was multi-generational, and therefore, vertical. We wanted a culture which acknowledged the human body, not just for sex, but to hug each other, to be naked without shame, to revere the body with natural foods, beneficial exercise, herbs, baths, massage, deep understanding. This was not part of the culture from which we came.We wanted a culture that thrived on gift-giving. We hitchhiked, shared our food and drugs, gave away our possessions. People who could afford to buy land invited others who could not to live there. We opened free stores, free clinics, free kitchens, not just in the Haight, but everywhere we went. We wanted be living proof that God was taking care of us and therefore there was no need to hoard. We wanted to live without the constraints of time. We wanted to wake up each day and decide what would be the most fun to do that day--or just find out as it went along. We wanted to go with the flow, follow our bliss, be here now. This was in complete opposition to the culture from which we came. We wanted new ways to value one another, rather than by wealth, status, looks, achievements, machismo, as our culture of origin had taught us, and continues to teach us through the media. We wanted to value one another for being lovable and real. We valued spiritual depth, which we referred to as "heavy." We admired one another for being happy. We admired those who offered selfless service or peaceful resolution of conflict.We wanted a spirituality that actually caused you to grow as a person, not one in which people attended religious gatherings for social status. We wanted to be guided by our own Inner Spirits, rather than by priests. We thirsted for the spiritual awareness and grace we experienced on psychedelics, without psychedelics, or in addition to them. Many hippies would spent their last cent on a weekend workshop that promised to "change your life forever." That was how so many gurus found followers in those days. We wanted to live in harmony with the earth, the plants and animals, the indigenous peoples of the earth, with each other, with ourselves. We were the fuel behind the rapid expansion of the environmental movement. We experimented with living arrangements that we thought would harmonize with nature. We sought out indigenous tribal elders as our teachers. We wanted to make the things we wore and used with our hands, grow our food and medicine, feel all kinds of weather--all the experiences our modern urban lives had excluded in the name of convenience and comfort. We wanted to live on the road, have adventures, build things that hadn't been built before, and live in them. We wanted to live our mythic selves, give ourselves names that resonated with our souls, dress in costumes that expressed our dreams, do daring deeds, dance as if no one was looking, decorate our homes with magical things, listen to music that took us out of ordinary reality into altered states of awareness. We wanted to see life without violence. We wanted media that contained truth. Some of us risked our lives to find out what the government was doing and let the underground press know. We wanted to talk about things in print that we were not allowed to discuss in our culture of origin. We wanted to live without stupid, arbitrary rules, either for ourselves or for our children. Some of our children, as adults today, say they wish we had been more protective of them, or offered more structure. We only knew what we endured, being as culturally different from our culture of origin as Chinese are from Italians, and punished for it, and wished to spare our children these experiences. However, some portion of kids raised by hippie parents grew up to be hippies themselves. At that point, one can say, a new culture was born and continues. ...Alicia Bay Laurel www.AliciaBayLaurel.com http://www.hippiemuseum.org/intamacy.html [ Post Comment ] Comment #20 posted by whig on February 02, 2006 at 16:14:02 PT Wow FoM, that interview with John Lennon was amazing, and the interviewer -- Pete Hammill!? Is that the same as Peter Hammill of Van der Graaf Generator?!Holy freaking fantastic. [ Post Comment ] Comment #19 posted by Sam Adams on February 02, 2006 at 15:32:25 PT my other post re: hippies - I joke around about this a lot, my actual point is that cannabis in the US has moved far beyond the domain of the bohemian-type culture. Virtually all young people use it at one time or another, and many "enthusiasts" are as clean cut looking as your local Republican congressman. In fact, he's probably a "stoner" too! [ Post Comment ] Comment #18 posted by FoM on February 02, 2006 at 14:29:59 PT Off Topic: Bono Pushes U.S. To Increase Aid Bono Pushes U.S. To Increase Aid To Poor***Bono Asks Washington to Boost Aid to World's Poor an Additional 1 Percent of the U.S. Budget.By Nedra Pickler, Associated Press WriterWASHINGTON Feb 2, 2006 — Quoting from Islamic, Jewish and Christian texts, rock star Bono called Thursday for the U.S. government to give an additional 1 percent of the federal budget to the world's poor. Speaking to President Bush and members of Congress at the National Prayer Breakfast, the U2 front man said it's unjust to keep poor people from selling their goods while singing the virtues of the free market, to hold children to ransom for the debts of their grandparents and to withhold medicines that would save lives. "God will not accept that," he said. "Mine won't. Will yours?"Bono's speech riveted the ballroom audience that included the president and first lady and leaders from Congress, the Cabinet, the military, the clergy and countries from around the world. At every table, Bono had distributed white plastic bracelets from The ONE Campaign to fight AIDS and poverty, and Sen. Hillary Clinton was among those who wrapped it around her fingers while she listened. Bono thanked the president for helping to fight the spread of malaria and AIDS. Bush, in markedly lighter remarks than the singer, praised him as "a doer" but didn't comment on his proposal. "The thing about this good citizen of the world is he's used his position to get things done," Bush said. "You're an amazing guy, Bono. God bless you." Bono said the United States spends less than 1 percent of its budget on the world's poor. One percent of last year's budget would have been about $26 billion. On the Net: http://www.whitehouse.govCopyright 2006 The Associated Press [ Post Comment ] Comment #17 posted by FoM on February 02, 2006 at 13:26:43 PT This Is Where My Heart Is I hope those who don't like anything about the hippie culture will look at these links and maybe see why so many people can relate to this space in time.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippiehttp://www.hippiemuseum.org/earth.htm [ Post Comment ] Comment #16 posted by museman on February 02, 2006 at 13:06:11 PT constitutional reality A lot of Politicians interpret the constitution the same way a lot of christians interpret the bible, selectively and with a lot of denial. [ Post Comment ] Comment #15 posted by FoM on February 02, 2006 at 12:28:17 PT siege What you said sounds right to me. [ Post Comment ] Comment #14 posted by siege on February 02, 2006 at 12:21:12 PT KNOWLEDGE the marijuana hippies: drove VW buss & VW hippies and homeless back in my time most all had from 4-6 and 8 years of collage, and business had down sizes and they could not get work, and where told they had too much KNOWLEDGE...to get work. AND Bush is doing it again!!! So our Kids & Grandkids will have NOTHING!! [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by FoM on February 02, 2006 at 12:02:00 PT Stinkin Phoneheads I read whig's comment and I had to laugh because so much of this war is on a hippie prejudice. Our culture has been called stinkin hippies so long I thought this name might suit the people who smoke cannabis but work in a suit and tie and look down there nose at lovers of nature and people rather then money. [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by whig on February 02, 2006 at 11:35:41 PT Sam Hippies. They're everywhere. They wanna save the earth, but all they do is smoke pot and smell bad. I hate hippies! I mean, the way they always talk about "protectin' the earth" and then drive around in cars that get poor gas mileage and wear those stupid bracelets - I hate 'em! I wanna kick 'em in the nuts! —Cartman [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by Sam Adams on February 02, 2006 at 11:01:34 PT southern CA The only thing I can think of is that these local politicos are so massively corrupt that they don't care about reality. They probably have old-codger type hard-core right winger retired businessmen that hand them huge amounts of cash every year.So maybe all they're doing is serving their REAL constituents, who don't care how much of the county's money is wasted on senseless, doomed lawsuits. They'll still get the bag full of money from old Mr. Moneybags to force through another tacky strip mall or some ugly condos in town. Fight the marijuana hippies?? Yes, sir. Anything else you want, sir? [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by whig on February 02, 2006 at 10:17:42 PT Comment #8 There are still state prohibition laws to contend with. I don't have as good a handle on that, and it may vary quite a bit from one state to the next. This is my principle difficulty in finding grounds for for our friend Runruff to appeal, he wasn't convicted on federal charges.Maybe we need to start taking apart each of the state constitutional provisions and statutes. However, it's generally more difficult in principle because where the federal government was originally established as having limited authority except where granted, the states were generally held to have plenary authority except where limited. [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by Max Flowers on February 02, 2006 at 10:16:47 PT Wow, whig! Now you've impressed me too.I believe that the coming lawyers on this matter need to consult some non-lawyers (I assume you are not a laywer whig, but I could be wrong) on this---namely, us! Or, just be sent this thread. Sometimes, lawyers are too close to the law to see it with the common sense of the people whom it is intended to serve. [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by Max Flowers on February 02, 2006 at 10:09:39 PT Thank you too whig ...for all the cogent points you have made here as well. This is a community effort!I might add that if they want to go even deeper, the fact is that cannabis is exempted from the Controlled Substances Act by "grandfather clause": pre-1938 drugs (cannabis included) "are politically 'grandfathered' drugs" and "need not meet modern standards for safety and effectiveness." Ibid; United States v. Rutherford, 442 U.S. at 546-48; Rutherford v. United States, 541 F.2d. at 1140-42. Therefore, all prohibition against it has been illegal all along. [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by whig on February 02, 2006 at 10:08:14 PT Commerce clause II Here is the commerce clause, part of Article I, Section 8 which Max quoted below:"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"Now, do a simple textual replacement of the word REGULATE with the word PROHIBIT and see if it makes sense as an authorized power of the congress:"To PROHIBIT commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"This needs to be made explicit, it needs to be expressed repeatedly in any and all legal forums where the CSA is being litigated. The CSA cannot be constitutional AT LEAST AS TO SCHEDULE I. It is a clear overreach of the commerce clause. [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by whig on February 02, 2006 at 10:02:33 PT Commerce clause Now, in partial reply to Max's excellent analysis, but in order to anticipate the argument of the anti- counties, they can be expected to argue that the prohibition of cannabis under the Controlled Substances Act is pursuant to the commerce clause of the US constitution.What we need to remember is that this is a contention which has never been FACIALLY challenged. That is to say, all litigation (including Raich last year) which has challenged enforcement of the CSA has been AS-APPLIED to the specific class or circumstance of the case.In Raich, the supreme court made it clear that they will not favor as-applied challenges to the CSA.To defeat the anti- counties, to make it clear that the CSA does not trump California law via the supremacy clause, it is VITAL to show that it is not a reasonable extension of the COMMERCE clause, because PROHIBITION is not regulation, it overreaches and therefore usurps. Facially, the CSA must be ruled unconstitutional. If it is not challenged and defeated facially, the anti- counties' argument would prevail. [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by whig on February 02, 2006 at 09:56:12 PT Max Your analysis of the supremacy clause was completely correct. Thank you. [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by Max Flowers on February 02, 2006 at 09:29:33 PT People in gov't need to learn to read legalese Bear with me please, this will be a little long, but worth it."I believe that the federal law trumps the state law," Stone said. "All of the federal laws have to be equally or more adhered to because the federal laws supersede all other laws in the United States of America."San Diego County officials filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court on Jan. 20 making the same argument. It is believed to be the first lawsuit that seeks to overturn any of the medical marijuana laws approved by voters in 11 states.The suit argues that states have to bow to a federal law that makes all marijuana use illegal and says it has no medicinal value. It cites Article VI of the U.S. Constitution ---- known as the "Supremacy Clause" ---- which makes the Constitution and federal laws "the supreme law of the land." -Let's go over the Supremacy Clause, shall we?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, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.People tend to focus on the phrases "shall be the supreme law of the land" and the phrase which comes immediately afterward and finishes the clause. But when you read laws, every single word counts, and often a few words make a huge change in the meaning; so you have to pay attention to all of it and cannot focus on one part to the exclusion of other parts.These prohibitionist supervisors, and everyone else who thinks they can use the supremacy clause to say that federal law trumps state laws, need to think more carefully about the first part of the clause:This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; "And the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof" means that the laws of the United States (federal law) have to be in pursuance of---that is, obeying and consistent with---the Constitution. In other words, in order to be the "supreme law of the land", a federal law must first pass the test of being Constitutional. A federal law can't be "supreme" (able to `trump' state law) simply by virtue of being a federal law alone---it has to be kosher according to the Constitution.So we then review the part of the Constitution that deals with the separation of federal power and state sovereignty, the Tenth Amendment, which says: 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.So THEN, one has to look at which powers are delegated to the United States (federal authority) by the Constitution. In other words, we look at the enumerated (limited) powers that ARE given to the federal government by the Constiution, knowng that if it is not there in the list, it is NOT under federal jurisdiction. Those enumerated powers are listed in Section 8:Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;To borrow money on the credit of the United States;To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;To establish post offices and post roads;To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;To provide and maintain a navy;To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--AndTo make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. Those areas above are the only areas which Congress is allowed by the Constitution to have supremacy over the states, period. Those who make the argument that the Supremacy Clause means that federal law "trumps" state law no matter what the federal law is, are making a foolishly simplistic interpretation of the Constitution or are being treasonously disingenuous. There is no way that the founders were sloppy enough to put such a huge contradiction into the Constitution---one that on one hand says that all power not specifically named to be federal defaults to the states, and on the other says that any federal law is the supreme law of the land. Think about it! That would have negated every single thing they were working toward, making state sovereignty and indeed most of the Constitution itself irrelevant and impotent! We KNOW they did not intend that, so the proper interpretation has to be that when they wrote in the Supremacy Clause This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, they meant only federal jurisdiction which is constitutionally enabled, i.e. the areas specificially listed in Section 8.I believe that my above analysis is exactly the one that will be used by lawyers defending the people of the state of California, if it should even get that far, from the attempt by ignorant and corrupt county supervisors to negate their will and their rights as state citizens and improperly place them under false federal purview. [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by Storm Crow on February 02, 2006 at 09:18:23 PT Political suicide Depending on the area, anywhere between 60 to 80 % of the American public support medical marijuana. That is a clear majority of Americans. Couldn't these guys pick some other subject to commit political suicide with? And have you registered to vote yet, so we can vote these idiots out of office? Of course, we could always do a recall! Former Gov. Davis was just too boring and we recalled him so we could see a "pretty face". These guys are threatinging our health! They gotta go! [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by dongenero on February 02, 2006 at 07:42:14 PT what is with these county boards!!?? Oh, please federal government! Please take away our State's rights. We don't want the freedom planned for the states by our forefathers. We want to live under an all powerful centralized government that does all of our thinking for us.These board members going against the voters in favor of the federal government should be drummed out of office in disgrace.If the people of this country don't begin standing up against this sort of thing , there will be nothing left to stand up for.By the people and for the people...but don't think it happens automatically and without vigilance on the part of the people to oversee their elected officials. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by afterburner on February 02, 2006 at 07:16:49 PT ot Congressional Report Card: Track *your* Fearless Leader. It's all over but the shouting:2006 Drug Policy Reform Congressional Voter Guide: A Survey of The U.S. House of Representatives on Drug Policy Reform: A Report by the Drug Policy Alliance Network http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/voterguide013106.cfm Download Report [PDF] http://www.drugpolicy.org/docUploads/VoterGuide2006DPA.pdf [ Post Comment ] Post Comment