Concordia res Parvae Crescunt
by Patrick Reagan
On Oct. 20th, 2009, Federal Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) personnel raided the property of Mr. Martin Pieper of Fort Collins, Colorado, confiscating 150 cannabis plants and growing equipment. Mr. Pieper has claimed that his cultivation was allowed by Colorado’s medical cannabis law passed by initiative in 2000 (Colorado Constitutional Amendment 20) and that, as a designated caregiver, he is entitled to the return of his crop. To date, Mr. Pieper has yet to receive from the DEA one plant, one gram, or even one cent in monetary compensation for the confiscation and likely destruction of his property and the property of the patient’s under his care.
In an ironic twist, on Oct. 19th, the day before the raid, Federal Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Justice Department would no longer prosecute those patients and caregivers who were in “clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state law.†The medical cannabis community breathed a heavy sigh of relief having endured crackdowns during the previous two administrations, and believed that this was the “Change†they had voted for. Unfortunately, the announcement was taken to mean that the Federal government would stop harassing medical cannabis patients and their caregivers entirely, but, as Mr. Pieper’s case is quickly demonstrating, the Federal government had no such intention.
Mr. Holder’s memorandum states that:
“The prosecution of significant traffickers of illegal drugs, including marijuana, and the disruption of illegal drug manufacturing and trafficking networks continues to be a core priority in the Department’s efforts against narcotics and dangerous drugs, and the Department’s investigative and prosecutorial resources should be directed towards these objectives. As a general matter, pursuit of these priorities should not focus federal resources in your States on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana.†[Emphasis added]
These emphases tell a few things.
Mr. Holder goes on to give a bold statement:
“Of course, no State can authorize violations of federal law…â€
Au contraire, Mr. Holder! Many states, since the inception of the Union, have used the principle of interposition to nullify and “violate†Federal laws that were deemed harmful to their residents and their interests. The greatest such example of this was widespread resistance by abolitionist states to the Fugitive Slave Act throughout the mid-19th century. The use of nullification is an essential check on Federal overreach into areas not explicitly authorized by the Constitution. Contemporary examples of this include state nullification of Federal firearm regulations, REAL ID, national healthcare, and even the legalization of cannabis for medicinal purposes.
Is it possible that the DEA has had it right all along, that they knew Mr. Pieper was indeed using Amendment 20 as a shield for a commercial cannabis crop and thus warranted a raid? Yes, it is. However, the proper thing for them to do with such information would be to notify Colorado authorities and leave it up to them as to whether or not Mr. Pieper should be prosecuted. The Federal government has no legitimate authority to regulate that which is produced in a state until it crosses state lines. Furthermore, when it comes to what Americans can and cannot use as medicine, nothing in the Constitution authorizes the Federal government to regulate this either, in a clear violation of the sanctified doctor-patient relationship, as well as the 10th Amendment.
In modern, Western jurisprudence, it is proper to present evidence to a judge for a warrant, or a grand jury for an indictment; it is doubtful that the DEA did either. If this man is guilty of a crime, certainly the government can prove so beyond the shadow of a doubt before a jury in a court of law. Rather than steal Mr. Pieper’s property and leave him in a legal limbo, the Federal government should urge Colorado to prosecute this man and provide them with the evidence that will secure a conviction. If he is guilty of hiding behind Amendment 20 for his own personal gain, he deserves to be brought to justice for it in a Colorado court of law, and, in this writer’s opinion, he deserves to have the book thrown at him for discrediting the pure and honest intention of compassion that lies at the heart of the medical cannabis community.
I wholeheartedly implore Colorado residents to urge their legislators to give Amendment 20 some teeth when it comes to Federal interference. Coloradoans, as well as those residents in present and future medical cannabis states, must beseech their legislators to take up the spirit of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 that declared it the solemn duty of the states to stand up to an abusive Federal government and interpose on behalf of their residents’ interests.
Partially nullifying unconstitutional Federal drug laws has not been enough to dissuade the Feds from calling off their goons. Demand that they make it a state felony, punishable by fines and/or prison time, should Federal agents interfere at all with the law-abiding members of the medical cannabis community, and that their proper role in pursuing the “wolves in sheep’s clothing†should be restricted to information-sharing only. Or best yet, encourage them to seek a “separate peace†to the “War on Drugs†by nullifying prohibition and pursuing a more peaceful and productive alternative, such as rehabilitation.
Whatever you decide to do, Colorado, do so with the foremost thought that your patients and their caregivers are still being harassed by the Federal government despite their overtures of non-interference, and that while imprisonment may no longer be mandatory in their rapacious repertoire, thievery still seems to be their forte. Do not give them the satisfaction, Colorado! Stand up for your sick and dying, the people who care for them, and the 10th Amendment to the Constitution!
CLICK HERE – to view the Tenth Amendment Center’s Legislative Tracking Page for State Marijuana Legislation.
Patrick Reagan is a libertarian Constitutionalist who is currently traveling abroad.
Copyright © 2010 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
I do not believe the Feds will ever back down. Not until the States Legislatures threaten the Feds. The ongoing problem we've had with the FEDS has been working itself for how long? From my understanding, States Power needs to really kick the door down. We all want a peaceful solution but I do not believe there ever will be. Those in DC are in a different frame mind and will never change. Something else unseen and invisible is making policy forcing our elected public officials to do other than what we ask. This attitude they have in DC is very destructive upon our Nation. Its not just cannabis but the Bankers, the Fed Reserve and others involved in a huge Betrayal upon the American People. My answer is for all States to completely stop sending Federal income tax money to them. States need to stop asking for help from DC as well. This is true Leadership with Vision. Fear is in the hearts I know in the men and women in State Legislatures. I do not truly believe they all have what it takes to be American Patriots as our Forefathers were. They do not know what true sacrifice means. You all keep on wasting your time fighting and taking the Feds to court. Nothing will happen til the States stand up and REALLY protect their people. The Federal Government is our Servant. This needs to always be made public.
One of the first things that crossed my mind concerning the cannabis issue is this. If cannabis growers knew basic constitutional law, particularly the Founder's division of fed and state government powers, then they probably wouldn't have constitutional "experts" like Holder breathing down their necks. Same goes for people fighting other rights issues, such as religious expression, marriage, pro-life, public schooling and healthcare, that constitutionally clueless feds wrongly stick their big noses into, particularly where constitutionally unauthorized federal taxes are concerned.
Sometimes I think that people's idea of the pursuit of happiness is complaining about the federal government more than anything else.
I'm waiting for a drug dealer to use the tenth amendment as a legal defense. I believe he would have a hard time making his argument since most people are anti-drug even though the drug dealer would be constitutionally correct.
“Of course, no State can authorize violations of federal law…” --WRONG!
What he should have said if he was interested in being correct was "Of course, no state can authorize violations of the CONSTITUTION...". There is a big difference between all laws passed by the federal government and laws in pursuance of the constitution.
btw, I'm not down with doing drugs and don't like all the excuses people make for legalizing it like "it is not harmful" when it is but it is up to the state's own laws to enforce (or there own personal choice). Those should be good enough and if a state decides it is OK then that is up to them as well. I think a person's own moral objection to someone else's behavior should not be enough for anyone to restrict someone's freedom.
Eric Holder -“Of course, no State can authorize violations of federal law…”
It would be interesting to hear his reaction to the following:
1) Does he believe that the President, members of Congress, justices of the Supreme Court, or any employee of the federal government can authorize violations of federal law?
2) Does he NOT believe that the Constitution and the powers that it grants to the federal government or prohibits to the states is the supreme law of the land, and so federal law?
3) If he does believe that it is the supreme law of the land, how does he justify the authorization of violations of the supreme law of the land by the federal government?
4) If he does NOT believe that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, then does he also believe that all of the amendments to the Constitution have no force of law?
John
I agree. Those are great questions. Since I'm pretty sure Mr. Holder won't answer them, I'll try to do so on his behalf as I suspect he would reply (even though I'm quite sure I disagree with Mr. Holder on virtually everything).
"Dear John:
Thanks for your questions. Here are my answers:
1) No. We can't authorize violations of federal law.
2) I agree that the US Constitution is the supreme law of the the land.
3) I am unaware of any 'violations' by the feds for which I am responsible. Federal drug laws are authorized under the 'commerce clause' of the US Constitution and the supremacy clause makes contrary state laws void. I'm just enforcing valid federal law and I can ignore contrary state law under the supremacy clause.
4) Not applicable since I believe as stated in #2 above.
Sincerely,
Eric"
The problem is simply the commerce clause that has been badly misinterpreted to expand Congressional power to every and any area of our lives in complete contravention of the ideas and ideals of limited government as clearly expressed in the US Constitution.
We simply can't win these arguments unless/until people demand reversal of the ridiculous opinions expanding the commerce clause (Wickard v. Filburn being the poster child for this).
I would say the same thing for the 'general welfare' clause as well. Its used to grant unlimited power to the federal government even when that power is restricted by other parts of the constitution. A possible argument we can use it so say that if you give federal government unlimited power then you are destroying the tenth amendment because it would give states 0% power and the tenth specifically states that states have power so you can't say the federal government has 100% power or you will be nullifying the tenth amendment itself.
The general welfare clause specifically states "the United States", not "the People of the United States".
Funny how people seem to think the founders were stupid and careless about where they used their language.
I guess that's what you get when you foster a world where the even meaning of "is" is subject to bending.
Guest (first reply) - They would only have the intended effect if he was to restrict his answers to "yes" or "no".
As we all know, though, neither of those words would escape his lips in relation to any of those questions, and he couldn't restrict himself to one word to answer those questions in any case.
John:
Agreed. If you could get Holder to answer and to only answer "yes" or "no", you could walk him down the primrose path to his logical doom.
I've noticed politicians are not very good at giving yes or no answers. You can't even get them to agree on the meaning of the word 'is' (as someone else noted here).
I believe politics has become a process that selects for people who are unfailingly ambitious and narcissistic. A normal, mentally healthy, well-adjusted person would not be interested in running for office and dealing with the B.S. As far as I can tell, Ron Paul is an exception but he is as rare as hen's teeth (whatever that means!) : )
Are you saying the general welfare clause applies to the government of the United States and not to unlimited spending programs for the people? If so, then I would agree with you that the general welfare clause is meant for the existing powers of the United States.
In order to get an explanation of why politicians do that you will have to read 1984 which is a fictional world on what totalitarianism would look like. In explains all the tactics the leaders used to manipulate the people like 'hate week', 'double-speak', 'newspeak', 'polspeak', and creating a continous state of war.
When I read that it made me think about what our current elected officials do.
Wickard was definitely the main thrust of it all - and it was repeated in 2005 in Gonzales v Raich....bad news indeed.
Michael
Yes, Raich was more bad news, as usual, from the USSC. Scalia made a run at holding back the commerce clause through the necessary and proper clause but, frankly, that logic is just as weak as Wickard's. Once you agree that Congress can regulate anything that has an impact on commerce, you're toast. You might as well give up and just say Congress can regulate anything it wants. That's how Pelosi, et al see it today.
As 'unknown' (above) says, it doesn't even slow them down that this analysis completely wipes out vast parts of the Constitution such as the 10th amendment. It's result-driven analysis.
Also, the fealty to precedent under the specious concept of stare decisis makes for such asinine opinions as Raich where Wickard is elevated to the status of binding law even though it was wrongly decided. Opinions such as Dred Scott and Wickard are clearly wrong and brave people need to just stand up, say they're wrong and overrule their holdings.
It's amazing how, everywhere you turn, there's yet another string of bad logic supporting this system that has moved SO FAR from its original design!
There are several constitutional problems with Wickard, Gonzales and other such cases, IMO.
First, Jefferson used the word "exclusively" when describing state legislative power to regulate intrastate commerce.
“For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes.” –Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson’s Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bank-tj.asp
And I agree with Jefferson that there is no reason for constitutionally-limited Congress to stick its big nose into intrastate commerce.
Next, regarding cases like Wickard, an examination of FDR-era case opinions indicates the following. FDR’s puppet justices scandalously ignored state sovereignty statutes like Article V and the 10th A. when they decided cases which tested Congress's constitutional limits. This is evidenced by the following statement from Wickard where special-interest justices practically treated state sovereignty like a wive’s tale, IMO.
"In discussion and decision, the point of reference, instead of being what was "necessary and proper" to the exercise by Congress of its granted power, was often some concept of sovereignty thought to be implicit in the status of statehood." --Justice Jackson(?), Wickard v. Filburn, 1942. http://supreme.justia.com/us/317/111/case.html
But the truth concerning state sovereignty is this. Contrary to today’s PC idea that USSC case decisions are final, when state lawmakers still understood state sovereignty, they would use their unique, Article V power to “overrule” unpopular USSC decisions. The 11th and 16th Amendments are examples of this, kind of.
The bottom line is that corrupt justices have scandalously ignored the following constitutionally-based rules which should apply in most cases where there's a conflict between federal and state powers.
Rule #1: The states are always right
Rule #2: When the states are wrong, see rule #1
Finally, regarding medical cannabis, the USSC has already decided that Congress cannot practice medicine.
“Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously beyond the power of Congress.” –Linder v. United States, 1925. http://supreme.justia.com/us/268/5/case.html
The bottom line is this, IMO. Not only are cannibas growers evidently not familiar with state sovereignty, but they are unsurprisingly helping to elect constitutionally inept state lawmakers who are stupidly bowing down to the state-established federal government as if the federal government was an idol.
What a mess! :^(
There are several constitutional problems with Wickard, Gonzales and other such cases, IMO.
First, Jefferson used the word "exclusively" when describing state legislative power to regulate intrastate commerce.
“For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes.†–Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson’s Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bank-tj.asp
And I agree with Jefferson that there is no reason for constitutionally-limited Congress to stick its big nose into intrastate commerce.
Next, regarding cases like Wickard, an examination of FDR-era case opinions indicates the following. FDR’s puppet justices scandalously ignored state sovereignty statutes like Article V and the 10th A. when they decided cases which tested Congress's constitutional limits. This is evidenced by the following statement from Wickard where special-interest justices practically treated state sovereignty like a wive’s tale, IMO.
"In discussion and decision, the point of reference, instead of being what was "necessary and proper" to the exercise by Congress of its granted power, was often some concept of sovereignty thought to be implicit in the status of statehood." --Justice Jackson(?), Wickard v. Filburn, 1942. http://supreme.justia.com/us/317/111/case.html
But the truth concerning state sovereignty is this. Contrary to today’s PC idea that USSC case decisions are final, when state lawmakers still understood state sovereignty, they would use their unique, Article V power to “overrule†unpopular USSC decisions. The 11th and 16th Amendments are examples of this, kind of.
The bottom line is that corrupt justices have scandalously ignored the following constitutionally-based rules which should apply in most cases where there's a conflict between federal and state powers.
Rule #1: The states are always right
Rule #2: When the states are wrong, see rule #1
Finally, regarding medical cannabis, the USSC has already decided that Congress cannot practice medicine.
“Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously beyond the power of Congress.†–Linder v. United States, 1925. http://supreme.justia.com/us/268/5/case.html
The bottom line is this, IMO. Not only are cannibas growers evidently not familiar with state sovereignty, but they are unsurprisingly helping to elect constitutionally inept state lawmakers who are stupidly bowing down to the state-established federal government as if the federal government was an idol.
What a mess! :^(
BTW the supremacy clause specified that all laws made in pursuance of the constitution will be the supreme law of the land. It is also clear on what laws the federal government can write in article 1 section8, so if there is no clear enumerated authority for a law to be written (that they have already been written, and passed not withstanding), then the federal laws claim to be supreme are a fallacy.. They are not the supreme law of the land, and are illegal to enforce against state law.
"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."
Subscribe to entries
Subscribe to comments
All content © 2012 by Tenth Amendment Center
[...] From the AP report: Attorney General Eric Holder says a lawsuit in San Francisco over warrantless wiretapping threatens to expose ongoing [...]
[...] Complete Story: Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)The Great Lie of the Nanny StateThe real reason Eric Holder is friendly to terroristsNew Czar Appointed: The I’m Absolutely Clueless CzarEric Holder Being Pressured To Explain WHY Justice Dismissed Black Panther … 33.669465 -117.823111 [...]
[...] Au Contraire, Mr. Holder! [...]
[...] Au Contraire, Mr. Holder! [...]