Supreme Court Rule on Controlled Substances Act
In a major case before the US Supreme Court, Gonzalez v. Raich, the court ruled that the Federal Controlled Substances Act commerce clause gave Congress authority to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana.
Facts of the Case
In 1996 California voters passed the Compassionate Use Act, legalizing marijuana for medical use. California’s law conflicted with the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which banned possession of marijuana. After the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) seized doctor-prescribed marijuana from a patient’s home, a group of medical marijuana users sued the DEA and U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft in federal district court.
The medical marijuana users argued the Controlled Substances Act – which Congress passed using its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce – exceeded Congress’ commerce clause power. The district court ruled against the group. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and ruled the CSA unconstitutional as it applied to intrastate (within a state) medical marijuana use. Relying on two U.S. Supreme Court decisions that narrowed Congress’ commerce clause power – U.S. v. Lopez (1995) and U.S. v. Morrison (2000) – the Ninth Circuit ruled using medical marijuana did not “substantially affect” interstate commerce and therefore could not be regulated by Congress.
Does the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801) exceed Congress’ power under the commerce clause as applied to the intrastate cultivation and possession of marijuana for medical use?
Does the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801) exceed Congress’ power under the commerce clause as applied to the intrastate cultivation and possession of marijuana for medical use?
The majority argued that Congress could ban local marijuana use because it was part of such a “class of activities”: the national marijuana market. Local use affected supply and demand in the national marijuana market, making the regulation of intrastate use “essential” to regulating the drug’s national market.
Learn more http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_03_1454
Idaho State Attorney Letter
Nullification generally is considered to take one of two forms. The first is where a State acts within the system, whether through a court challenge, or through concentrated series of efforts designed to repeal or amend offending legislative provisions. The second form is most simply described as outright defiance of the law; in other words, a State simply would ignore a federal provision, or a decision of a federal court.
Nullification, If Meant As A Term Through Which Offending Legislation or Judicial Decisions Are Overturned By Working Within The Existent Constitutional And Legal Framework, Is Permissible And Encouraged By Our System of Checks and Balances.
Idaho has historically participated in a number of these efforts including the current challenge to the Healthcare Reform Law, as well as various resolutions addressed to the Federal Government with respect to the state sovereignty and specific federal legislative enactments. (See HeR 64, 44,and SJM 106 (2010)). These examples reflect how a State can work within the constitutionally designed system to overturn or amend a provision that offends a State’s notion of sovereignty and federal overreaching.
Nullification As Defiance Of Federal Law Or Enactment Is Inconsistent With A State Officer’s Duty To Act In Conformity With The Federal And State Constitutions.
Nullification is generally the argument that States have the ability to determine the constitutionality of a federal enactment, and if a State finds the enactment unconstitutional it can ignore or otherwise refuse to adhere to the federal requirements.
The basis for this argument is that the States came together to create the federal government, and therefore the States retain the ultimate discretion as to the reach of federal authority.! The adoption of these Resolutions in some respects represents the apex of the ongoing argument between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson over the scope and influence of the fledgling federal government.
These arguments arose cyclically throughout the Nation’s early history, reaching a virtual breaking point in 1828-1833 in what was referred to as the “Nullification Crisis.” President Andrew Jackson expressly rejected the theory of nullification as incompatible with the existence of the Union and destructive to the very purpose of the the Constitution. Southern State nullification advocates nevertheless continued to press their cause, and their arguments formed a central justification for the Civil War.
The Legal Difficulty Of Idaho’s Nullification Claim.
As an historical matter, many of the original States came into existence first as English colonies and then as sovereign parties to the Articles of Confederation. Idaho’s road to state status followed a much different path.
Virtually all land within Idaho is the result of the United States making a claim to the land, which was disputed by the British until the adoption of several treaties leading ultimately to the creation of the Oregon Territory. Congress then created the Territory of Idaho and, ultimately, the State of Idaho. Once Idaho was admitted as a State, it acquired all of the privileges and immunities held by each of the other States, but as reflected above, the right of nullification, the right of secession, and the compact theory had all been rejected by the United States by the time of statehood.
The framers of the Idaho Constitution were acutely aware of that fact. Hamilton actually suggested sending the Army into Virginia as a pretext-thus even the earliest arguments for nullification were viewed as latent arguments for civil war. See also Jonathon Elliot, “Answers of the Several State Legislatures: “State of New Hampshire” Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, pp. 538-539. (1907).
Jackson also expressly rejected the right to secede, noting that the Constitution forms a government, not a league of States. President Jackson’s Proclamation Regarding Nullification, December 10, 1832.
Joint British and United States Claim was provided for in Treaty of 1818. The Oregon Treaty (1846) established the boundary between United States claims and British Claims at the 49th Parallel. The territory of Oregon was created on August 14, 1848. The territory of Idaho was created on March 4,1863. Reviewing the Idaho Admission Bill, § 19 specifically applies the laws of the United States.
State inseparable part of the Union.
The State of Idaho is an inseparable part of the American Union, and the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.
The framers therefore expressly recognized Idaho’s status as a part of the United States and the supremacy of the United States Constitution. Consistent with this recognition, every legislator is required to affirm “that I will support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the State of Idaho. Legislators and other state officials, in other words, pledge to carry out their duties in a fashion that directly conflicts with the second form of the nullification theory.
The alpha and omega of the nullification theory, in sum, rest upon rejecting the principle that the United States Constitution as the supreme law of the land. The theory runs contrary to the very purpose of the federal constitution and Idaho’s express constitutional acknowledgment in Article I, § 3 of that supremacy.
Courts Have Expressly Rejected Nullification
Our history is replete with federal enactments that were unpopular in one State or another, or even within regions. Taking the logic of the nullification theory to its natural extension, federal law would become a patchwork of regulation depending upon which States chose to comply. It is hardly surprising, given this specter, that no court has ever upheld a State effort to nullify a federal law.
The most instructive case on nullification is likely Cooper v. Aaron. This case arose out of a belief by the State of Arkansas that it was not bound to follow the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education. 9 Arkansas, through its governor and legislature, claimed that there is no duty on the part of state official to obey federal court orders based upon the Court’s interpretation of the federal constitution.
The governor and the legislature, in practical effect, were advancing the theory that the States were the ultimate arbiters of the constitutionality of federal enactments and decisions.
The Court expressly rejected this argument stating: “No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it.” The Court went further: A governor who asserts power to nullify a federal court manifests that the fiat of a state governor, and not the Constitution of the United States, would be the supreme law of the land.
Conclusion
There is no right to pick and choose which federal laws a State will follow. Aside from ignoring the Supremacy Clause in Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, that contention cannot be reconciled with Article I, § 3 of the Idaho Constitution or the oath of office prescribed in Article III, § 25. I hope this brief analysis responds adequately to your inquiry.
Sincerely,
Assistant Chief Deputy
Read the full letter: Idaho AG Letter 20110121
Pro-Pot Lobby Spends Millions
The national pro-drug lobby spends millions of dollars to persuade voters to falsely believe “medical” marijuana laws are about compassion for the terminally ill. Because there has been little coordination between the states, the people of targeted states are unaware of the negative consequences of these bad laws until after they have been fooled into passing them. These laws are simply a back-door route to legalization, a shield for widespread recreational use of marijuana, and a springboard for a lucrative marijuana industry that can’t be regulated. Once passed, those selling these laws to voters on the premise of compassion quickly demonstrate their only real interest is capitalism.
Similar to the experience in other targeted states, virtually all of the money spent on Arizona’s “medical” marijuana initiative came from the Marijuana Policy Project. The Arizona prevention organization raised and spent a paltry $25,000 on their campaign as compared to well over $800,000 spent by the Marijuana Policy Project. Their disingenuous campaign tactics were ones used successfully in other states. Their campaign materials were printed in advance and their talking points were well rehearsed. Their main message was an impassioned plea to allow suffering, terminally ill people access to “medicine.” A beautiful young woman who had been a cancer patient was the official spokesperson. The media ate it up, giving plenty of free media time to the beautiful young cancer victim as a human-interest story (thus not a campaign message requiring equal time from our opposition). We were outspent and disadvantaged by years of propaganda. It should have been a rout.
The polls predicted a rout in Arizona. We now understand that the conducting and releasing of disingenuous polls is another one of the national pro-drug lobby’s campaign tactics. Throughout our campaign, well-funded pro-drug groups released (or encouraged the media to conduct and release) poll after poll showing that we would lose by a landslide. Apparently, the pro-drug lobby believes people (and legislators) are sheep. The simple question — “Are you in favor of ‘medical’ marijuana?” – does not reveal the deeper (and more relevant) feelings concerning the widespread recreational use, as well as increased social and economic ills, caused by these laws. This “polling” tactic is going on all over the country. The “polls” simply do not accurately reflect the opinion of the majority on the real issues.
As you know, contrary to the claims of the pro-drug lobby, state “medical” marijuana laws are not popular! (Similar to their strategy of relentlessly repeating their false mantra for 20 years that “marijuana is harmless,” they have spent millions and millions of dollars to deceive the public with disingenuous, loud and aggressive campaign tactics proclaiming the popularity of “medical” marijuana.) Marijuana advocates don’t mention that in California and Colorado, more cities and counties ban marijuana businesses than allow them! Nor do they mention that state “medical” marijuana laws create chaos, causing increased crime, youth marijuana use, and traffic fatalities and spawning a business that simply can’t be regulated.
As evidence that the public is becoming more aware of the chaos, just this past year, among other significant events:
- the people of Montana, through a grassroots campaign created by four moms, led a repeal effort (which led to repeal by the legislature, but then vetoed by the Governor, followed by the passage of a severely restrictive bill that now is being challenged in court by marijuana advocates),
- the people of South Dakota soundly rejected a “medical” marijuana initiative,
- the people of Oregon soundly rejected a “medical” marijuana dispensary component for their existing program,
- the people of California defeated a general legalization bill, despite being outspent by marijuana advocates $3.8 million to $300,000,
- the people of Arizona very narrowly passed a “medical” marijuana bill, despite the fact that opponents were outspent by advocates $800,000 to $25,000, and
- a repeal bill was introduced in the New Mexico legislature, resulting in a memorial bill requiring comprehensive studies over the next year.
CASA Report
Today a full 16 percent of the U.S. population is dependent on alcohol, nicotine or other drugs. Another 27 percent of the general population engages in use of these substances in ways that put themselves and others at risk, including underage and adult excessive drinking, tobacco use, and misuse of pain relievers, stimulants and depressants. For a staggering 43 percent of the nation, then — nearly every other American — addiction and risky substance use are a matter of public health.
Addiction is America’s number one health care and health cost problem. Approximately 30 percent of our federal and state health care spending is attributable to this disease. Across all government spending, the total financial cost is nearly $500 billion annually.
The extent of human misery is incalculable.
National Alliance for Marijuana Prevention 