[Peace-discuss] Re: [Discuss] War on drugs

[C. G. Estabrook]

The authority of the Supreme Court to declare an act of Congress 
unconstitutional is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution.  It was the result of 
a power-grab by Chief Justice John Marshall, on behalf of the property party.

No telling what those crazy members of Congress might do (some of them were even 
elected by [some] people), so you had to have a way of stopping them.  As the 
first Chief Justice of the US put it, "The people who own the country ought to 
govern it."  --CGE


John W. wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 9:54 PM, E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag 
> <mailto:ewj at pigs.ag>> wrote:
> 
>     Au contraire, I really do disagree with you about the concept of
>     constitutionality being based solely in the Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> You mean, a law can be unconstitutional in your own mind?  :-)
> 
>  
> 
>     Although the Supreme Court can determine constitutionality and it is
>     temporally the decision of the court that
>     establishes ultimate decisions in controversial cases, the Supreme
>     Court is by no means the sole determinate
>     of constitutionality provided that people are indeed able to read.
> 
> 
> Who else is, then?  The people?  It's a fine theory.  But try using that 
> argument in a court of law.
> 
>  
> 
>     It becomes an issue of money political winds and willingness to
>     pursue that actually brings an unconstitutional law to the courts,
>     sometimes nobody seems to care nobody wants to bother asking the
>     question.
> 
> 
> Well, why would anyone need to pursue it in the courts at all, since you 
> say that there's some other means of determining constitutionality?
> 
> 
>  
> 
>     Absolutely you are correct on the concept of amendments being
>     constitutional, which was my point.
>     If interstate commerce was sufficient authority to the Feds for
>     Prohibition, why then did the government
>     find it necessary to make an indisputable amendment? 
> 
>     Since the constitutional amendment was necessary
>     for the prohibition of alcohol consumption, why not for THC?
> 
>     Why did  the Californians play dead on their law and allow
>     themselves to be coerced? 
>     Did they lack the resources and fortitude to make the challenge?
> 
> 
> It's never that simple in our ridiculously complex system of checks and 
> balances - both federal and state laws, which frequently overlap or 
> contradict one another, and three branches of government in each.
> 
> There's plenty of information available if you Google it.  Try 
> "California medical marijuana federal enforcement", and make yourself a 
> legal expert like me.  :-)  Here's one particularly illustrative article 
> (which may illustrate also why I never went into the practice of law):
> 
> http://writ.news.findlaw.com/amar/20071109.html
> ...