Arizonans Dare To Defy The Feds Again!

Bookmark and Share
Posted by

  • Share on Tumblr

by Derek Sheriff

Just when you thought Arizona couldn’t get any more provocative, or push any more of the federal government’s buttons, it looks like America’s 48th state may actually become the 15th state to adopt another very controversial law!

This proposed law, on the other hand, may actually make some people on the Left, as well as the Right, happy for a change. I have my doubts about whether it will make those who put party above principle, or anyone employed by the U.S. Department of Justice happy, however.

While Arizona was getting tons of media attention related to the passage of its high profile immigration enforcement law, (SB 1070), the grassroots activists that were delivering more than 100 boxes of petitions containing 252,000 signatures to the Arizona Secretary of State’s office received little.

But this week, Fox 11 Arizona’s website reported:

“Secretary of State Ken Bennett’s office on Tuesday certified that organizers of the initiative campaign had turned in enough signatures to get the measure on the ballot.”

What measure is he referring to?

The Medical Marijuana Initiative, of course! The initiative, which Arizona voters will soon have a chance to vote into law this November, would do seven things according to the Arizona Medical Marijuana Policy Project’s website:

  • Allow terminally and seriously ill patients who find relief from marijuana to use it with their doctors’ approval.
  • Protect these seriously ill patients from arrest and prosecution for the simple act of taking their doctor-recommended medicine.
  • Permit qualifying patients or their caregivers to legally purchase their medicine from tightly regulated clinics, as they would any other medicine — so they need not purchase it from the criminal market.
  • Permit qualifying patients or their caregivers to cultivate their own marijuana for medical use if a regulated medical marijuana clinic is not located within 25 miles of the qualifying patient.
  • Create registry identification cards, so that law enforcement officials could easily tell who was a registered patient, and establish penalties for false statements and fraudulent ID cards.
  • Allow patients and their caregivers who are arrested to discuss their medical use in court.
  • Keep commonsense restrictions on the medical use of marijuana, including prohibitions on public use of marijuana and driving under the influence of marijuana.

The AMMPP, which is a grassroots organization, has been devoted to passing a medical marijuana initiative in Arizona in November 2010. As they explain on their homepage:

“Currently, seriously ill people who use marijuana on the advice of their doctor to treat illnesses such as cancer, AIDS, and multiple sclerosis are subject to arrest and imprisonment, simply for trying to stimulate their appetite or alleviate their pain.”

Objections

People who often dismiss state laws allowing the use of medical marijuana always seem to argue that “federal law trumps state law” and that federal “laws” still prohibit the possession, use, cultivation or distribution of the plant, even for medical purposes.

It’s true that federal “laws” make no exceptions for those who are sick and suffering, and the Feds have claimed universal jurisdiction, even over plants that are grown and consumed by patients in their own home. But I wish more of these critics, (and all Americans for that matter), would take the time to ask the following question:

“Which of the enumerated powers delegated to the federal government under the Constitution gives them the authority to prohibit the cultivation or use of marijuana at all, for any reason?”

It’s a fair question, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer to it. Michael Boldin, founder of the Los Angeles based Tenth Amendment Center puts it this way:

“An honest reading of the Constitution with an original understanding of the Founders and Ratifiers makes it quite clear that the federal government has no constitutional authority to override state laws on marijuana. All three branches of the federal government, however, have interpreted (and re-interpreted) the commerce clause of the Constitution to authorize them to engage in this activity, even though there’s supposedly no ‘legal’ commerce in the plant. At best, these arguments are dubious; at worst an intentional attack on the Constitution and your liberty.”

I know it’s difficult for educated, reasonably intelligent people to understand how cultivating, harvesting and consuming a plant, all on one’s own property, is actually in fact, a form of “interstate commerce”. However, that is only because it defies common sense, which is something the unelected, black robed demi-gods who preside over our federal court system do with ease almost daily. We mere mundanes, on the other hand, lack their special wisdom, which allows them to interpret the words of the Constitution in a more innovative and sophisticated way. Our duty is to stand in awe, bow our heads, wave incense before their judgement seats, and to suppress any impulse we might have to think critically about their interpretations.

Don’t be fooled. As far as medical marijuana is concerned, all marijuana that is produced within a state’s boundaries and stays there, falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of that state!

Congressional Commerce Clause Abuse

It’s funny that the same “Commerce Clause”, which has been pervert ed by the federal government to prohibit the medical use of marijuana, was also the same clause that was twisted to justify passing the legislation that gave us Obamacare. Fortunately, Arizona voters will have the opportunity to effectively nullify both Obamacare and the federal prohibition of medical marijuana this November.

Whether you approve of people using it for any reason, medical or otherwise, the fact of the matter is that unless and until the US Constitution is properly amended (the way it had to be in order to enact alcohol prohibition), the federal government has no authority to interfere with seriously ill Arizonans who decide to use marijuana with their state government’s permission.

The last time I checked, I discovered that although the 10th Amendment has been largely ignored by the Feds, it has not not been officially repealed. Just like all health care decisions, a person’s choice to use or not use Medical Marijuana is a sensitive and highly personal decision. It’s a decision that should, at the very most, be decided by we the people, in our own state, not by politicians or unelected bureaucrats and judges in far off Washington, DC!

Like every other state level measure designed to nullify unconstitutional acts of federal usurpation, the Arizona Medical Marijuana Initiative has the potential to be an unstoppable choice if the people of Arizona simply resolve to exercise their constitutional rights, with or without Washington, DC’s permission.

The County Sheriff, America’s Last Hope

But won’t the DEA come in and arrest people who are dispensing medical marijuana and/or even the sick and dying people who use it?

Well, the answer to that question largely depends on whether or not your state officials, especially your elected county sheriff, allows them to get away with doing that.

More and more sheriffs and candidates who are running for the office of sheriff, are boldly coming out and frankly saying that they will not tolerate federal agents who would dare to harass and arrest the innocent people they have sworn to protect.

Bill Hunt, for example, is a candidate for sheriff of Orange County, CA.  He is part of a growing movement of incumbents and candidates seeking the elected office of sheriff who have seen the light.  This great awakening of sheriffs across the country has mostly been the result of the educational efforts of former under cover narcotics officer and two term Graham County, AZ sheriff, Richard Mack.

Here’s an excerpt from a recent interview with Bill Hunt:

Question: “If you are elected sheriff and the DEA came into Orange County (OC) and asked OC Sheriff’s Department to help shut down medical marijuana dispensaries, would you oblige them with support?”

Bill Hunt: “No. I would prevent them, it’s unconstitutional! I’m not an advocate for legalizing marijuana but on tpthe other hand the sheriff is elected to enforce state laws. So, if I’m elected sheriff to this county enforcing state law and I’m using federal law to circumvent state law, then I’m not really being true to my office and my oath of office. The sheriff can prevent the feds from coming in and doing that.”

I can assure you, Bill Hunt is not alone. There are sheriffs already in office, and many more running for office, who agree with him 100%. But even if you don’t live in a county with a sheriff who takes his oath to support and defend the Constitution seriously (give him a copy of Sheriff Mack’s book and start educating him about his oath, or replace him with someone who is committed to keeping it), here is what the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) has to say about the matter that is very optimistic:

“Even within the confines of federal law, states can enact reforms that have the practical effect of removing the fear of patients being arrested and prosecuted under state law — as well as the symbolic effect of pushing the federal government to allow doctors to prescribe marijuana..Federal laws still apply to patients. While the federal government does not have the resources to arrest, try, and incarcerate a significant number of small-scale medical marijuana users and growers, the federal government has raided some large-scale medical marijuana distributors in California. However, because 99 out of 100 marijuana arrests are made at the state or local level, state medical marijuana laws give patients 99% protection.”

The Will Of The People And The Power Of The States

Take a step back and look at the big picture for a moment. What the MPP says about enforcement of the federal laws criminalizing medical marijuana also applies to other unconstitutional federal laws that states might decide to nullify. Some examples are: Obamacare, Cap and Trade, federal regulations on firearms manufactured and kept within state boundaries, the federal plan to ban incandescent light bulbs, or federal regulations that might prohibit the sale and consumption of raw milk. All of these have to actually be enforced by someone.

The Original Constitution

Get the Book Today!

If the people of a state choose to ignore the federal government’s unconstitutional acts of usurpation, which it mistakenly refers to as “laws”, and their state government stops assisting the Feds in their enforcement efforts, the reality is that the federal government does not have the resources or manpower to investigate, arrest, try, and incarcerate a significant number of those people who choose to ignore illegitimate federal edicts and instead exercise their constitutional rights.

The truth is that when enough people within a given state begin to form a consensus that certain federal laws forced upon them are unconstitutional and therefore illegitimate, and a majority of their government officials at the state and local level agree with and support them, then the idea that Thomas Jefferson expressed so clearly in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, will be actualized:

“.. whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force…”

Let’s make it so.

Derek Sheriff [send him email] is a research analyst for the Tenth Amendment Center. His articles have appeared in various publications, and he writes regularly for the Center on issues related to state sovereignty and nullification. His blog and podcast "Principles of '98" can be found at www.PrinciplesOfNinetyEight.Com. View his Tenth Amendment Center blog archives here, and his article archives here.

If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,

Or make a donation to help keep this site active.

Support the Tenth Amendment Center!
Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest

The biggest part missing from the legislation is heavy penalties for federal agents who harass and detain the users of medical marijauna sanctioned by the state. A clause of that nature would better enable the state, county, and local police forces to protect their citizens.

That indeed is the missing piece. One of the recent state firearm protection laws does impose a criminal penalty (not nearly heavy enough, IMHO) against federal goons.

Several years ago the Federalist Society proposed a law barring federal LEOs from carrying weapons while on duty in a given state without the governor's approval. States should consider enacting such laws ASAP.

A small first step toward breaking up the duopoly : pick a small state with initiative and referendum and get a referendum on the ballot to elect one house of the legislature by STV or some other from of PR.

Or maybe just sit back passively and enjoy centralized bipartisan tyranny from DC.

I like the 'idea' of the states being allowed to pass and enforce their own marijuana laws, but I'm not confident it would stand up if presented to the Supreme Court. The article states, "...the federal gov't has no authority to interfere with seriously ill Arizonans who decide to use marijuana with their state government’s permission." While that statement is true, that doesn't mean the fed won't interfere.

The SCOTUS has seriously twisted the law, in regards to the Interstate Commerce Clause, to uphold the federal gov't's side many times before. Take a look at Gonzales v. Raich. Angel Raich was well within her right to grow and consume marijuana for medicinal purposes under California's Proposition 215. In short, the SCOTUS didn't rule in Angel's favor.

"The fantasy that government is some magical, all-powerful entity like Santa Claus and will take care of everything for us if we just give up everything to it is so naive it would be laughable if it weren't so dangerous and so prevalent. " That is awesome. Hope you don't mind if I quote you!

Please feel free to use the quote and spread it far and wide! I wish EVERYONE would be FORCED to read and reply to that argument.

Again, the key to understanding that altruistic, benign, helpful, good, freedom-loving, etc. Big Government is a fantasy is accepting that governments do not exist in the real world (just as Santa and Obi-Wan Kanobe, etc. do not really exist). Governments are just groups of people with power. Very scary.

Thanks again for a great article!

4 paragraphs to get to the point. Learn to right dude.

Bill,

Here's a link you definitely want to read before you attempt to post again:
http://thinkexist.com/quotation/it_is_better_to_k...

It is interesting that nullification is being used here. Tom Woods has a new book on that subject. Here is an interview with him. http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell-show/2010/...

Great article! Thanks a lot for taking the time to write it and post it!!!

What I think it really good about Derek's article is that he really focused it on a constitutional perspective and the fact that these kinds of issues are supposed to be handled (and paid for) on a state level. That keeps the partisan rhetoric out of the debate, in my opinion.

I actually think if they treated illegal drug use the same way as illegal prescription drug use then we would see less of it. Right now people who use drugs are on the same side of t he law as the people who sell them and this drives it underground where it can't be seen easily. What if we made drug use legal but drug selling illegal? It would be easy for a cop to ask a drug user where he got it since the drug user has nothing to fear from the law. This would drive a wedge between the drug user and drug sellers as the drug sellers become scared that their customers might cooperate with the police about where they are getting their stuff.

Also, we would probably spend less resources putting drug users in prison and use them to go after big ruthless kingpens that bring in a lot of crime to the local communities.

Also, fighting drug selling on the city level might pay out more because the residents might feel more in control of their town if they are the ones making the laws of their own community.

Or perhaps, the illegal drug dealer retaliates against the buyer who blew the whistle on him and we have an even bigger mess with dead civilians, police officers etc. on a state or national level... not cool.

The federal government cannot legalize weed. It signed an international treaty promising to keep it illegal. It's where they get the authority to make it illegal. Treaties override the constitution. That's why we're in the situation we are end. If we make it legal about a dozen other countries have to also. And they're not going to do that.

Treaties override the constitution? Where did you learn that?

You are right that the federal government cannot legalize weed, though. But that is not from treaties as you have said. The Constitution simply does not permit the federal government to either criminalize OR legalize a plant.

I don't know of a treaty these not so united States entered into making marijuana illegal, but if there is such a treaty, then as Article VI, paragraph 2, of the Constitution clearly states, "all treaties made ... shall be the supreme law of the land." Perhaps though, if such a treaty does exist, it could be argued that since the united States did not have the constitutional delegated authority, as per Article I, Section 8, then such agreements are themselves unconstitutional.

Unforunately, Rex is partly correct about treaties overriding the constitution. Is it supposed to be that way? Absolutely not! Is it constitutional? The answer is a resounding 'NO!' However, the federal government has been using treaties to trump the Constitution for much longer than we've been arguing against it. If you aren't already familiar with the case, take a look at State of Missouri v. Holland. It's just one more example of the fed. overstepping their already muddied boundaries.

Bravo Michael! Right on the mark.

VP Thomas Jefferson, as President of the Senate, had noted the following in the parliamentary manuel that he made for the Senate.

"Surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way." --Thomas Jefferson: Parliamentary Manual, 1800. http://www.constitution.org/tj/tj-mpp.htm

Jefferson is essentially saying, IMO, that the President and the Senate cannot use their power to negotiate treaties as a back door to force citizens to comply with foreign laws based on powers that the states haven't delegated to Congress via the Constitution anyway.

What treaty are you talking about?

Man, there's just no end to the crazy arguments people come up with (and buy into) to give as much power to The Man as possible. The 'general welfare' clauses that supposedly allow Congress to do anything, the 'necessary and proper' clause that allows Congress to do anything, the commerce clause that allows Congress to do anything and the 'Night of the Living Constitution' that allows any branch to do anything. All these are not enough!

Now, we have to contend with the argument that Congress and the President can sidestep the Constitution and do anything by making a treaty with a foreign government. No more freedom of speech or religion in the US if Afghanistan is offended by something we say. No more power for Congress to declare war if the UN decides against it. No gun ownership in the US because Canada doesn't like it. One World Government, here we come! And, it will be so great because government will be even BIGGER!!!

Not only is this argument pathetically lame, it just blows me away that the people who spout this crap are SO EAGER to give up their liberties to Big Government. The fantasy that government is some magical, all-powerful entity like Santa Claus and will take care of everything for us if we just give up everything to it is so naive it would be laughable if it weren't so dangerous and so prevalent.

Everyone who thinks more power to a government is the answer to all our problems REALLY needs to grow up and start living in the real world. Government only exists in your mind - NOT in the real world. Government is made up of people and people are flawed. So, it follows that government is flawed. It's not magic and you don't get something for nothing.

How many examples of government failure do people need before they wake up and realize that Big Government is killing us? God help us...

I feel you on that one, TexualistDude. There are innumerable examples of the Big G mucking things up and its citizens paying the price. Unfortunately, people are so coddled by the nanny state they neglect all responsibility for themselves, up to and including their responsibility to decide things for themselves. This mindless follwership is a dangerous state to live in. The more people are nursed into this mindframe, the more freely they'll give up their liberties.

Reid v. Covert, October 1956 says otherwise.

If you want the sales to be illegal, then you enforce it and pay for it in your own state. National drug policy socialism needs to come crashing to an end.

But, absolutely, much of what you refer to on an economic level, I agree with. We would see far less crime and other issues surrounding it...

I would also like to add that it seems rather inhumane to say that you care about people's health and then put them in jail for ten years where God knows what can happen to someone.

Exactly. I've heard drug addicts say that going to jail was the best thing that ever happened to them, saved their life etc. I haven't read any serious studies on this, but I suspect it's the exception, not the norm. Also many people who have productive lives and bright futures have had their lives turned upside down or even ruined by the drug war. And let's not forget the "collateral damage" of people who are killed, injured or terrorized in the increasingly militarized enforcement process.

As I was reading this I had to fight my inner totalitarian instinct to limit the freedom of someone else. I think drug use is immoral much like heavy drinking is but that is just me but that belief somehow made me think I had the right to determine what someone else does which is rather telling about the nature of freedom.

Every socialist, fascist, communist, progressive, and religion believes they have some kind of moral authority over the people and this gives them the feeling that they have the right to determine what other people can do. Perhaps this is the true reason why we want control over other people. We want to ensure some moral purification of society based on what we think is moral but who is to say that any one of us is the absolute authority in that field.

The freedom of religion kind of establishes the right for every person to select our own moral code that we think is best. Some people will choose badly while others will choose correctly and just like the free market separates bad businesses from good this will separate the bad and the good while ensuring the individual freedom of all.

Trackbacks

  1. [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by TenthAmendmentCenter and Ed Menendez, Ron Paul. Ron Paul said: Arizonans Dare To Defy The Feds Again! http://bit.ly/dvjuMq #tlot #tcot #RonPaul [...]

  2. [...] as broad as it should be, tho. Guess you have to take what you can get in some states, tho. via Tenth Amendment Center [...]

  3. [...] Dare To Defy The Feds Again! Posted on June 8, 2010 by Bill Miller This article by Derek Sheriff on TenthAmendmentCenter.com. I know it’s difficult for educated, reasonably intelligent people to understand how cultivating, [...]

  4. [...] Article Link var addthis_language = 'en'; Marijuana Continues to go Mainstream: DEA Raids Discussion with Marijuana Hiking Club Founder (54.8%)Musicians Unite for Arizona Boycott but Will It Have an Impact? (42%)In Arizona, 'Los Samaritanos' leave water and food on trails used by immigrants (42%)N.J. medical marijuana advocates vow court battle if legalization is delayed (36.4%)Los Angeles Students to Be Taught That Arizona Immigration Law Is Un-American (26.5%)San Diego Faces Own Medicine as Arizona Residents Cancel Travel Following Boycott of State (21.3%) Fans asked to remove pro-Arizona immigration law shirts during NBA game (21.3%)L.A. Mayor Dismisses Warning That Arizona Could Cut Off Power Over Boycott (21.3%)Immigration Enforcement Debate May Not Stop With SB 1070 (20.7%)Police: Teaching Kids to Mistrust Government Makes Couple ‘Unsuitable’ Parents (18.4%)BP pledges $500m to study oil spill's impact on gulf (RANDOM – 0.2%) Post Published: 09 June 2010 Author: conspiracyman Found in section: Justice [...]

  5. [...] Arizonans Dare to Defy the Feds Again! – by Derek [...]

  6. [...] Arizonans Dare To Defy The Feds Again! [...]

  7. [...] of liberty. The message, the content you will find here will be national and local. We will cry and rejoice with the liberty efforts of other chapters. We will dig deep into our local issues and expose [...]

  8. [...] of liberty. The message, the content you will find here will be national and local. We will cry and rejoice with the liberty efforts of other chapters. We will dig deep into our local issues and expose [...]

  9. [...] I wrote an article which defended states that want to legalize medical marijuana in defiance of unconstitutional [...]

  10. [...] Jun 07, 2010 | Read | Comments (33) [...]

  11. [...] I wrote an article which defended states that want to legalize medical marijuana in defiance of unconstitutional [...]

  12. [...] “Which of the enumerated powers delegated to the federal government under the Constitution gives t… [...]