constitution question

[OutHouse]

i just had a discussion with a friend who was saying that the constitution prevents Colorado from passing a law that restricts his rights granted by the Federal Constitution (for example, taking away my right to bear arms) also prevents a state from passing a law that grants rights banned by Federal law. like medical pot.

the last part of his argument i have issue with. he is saying the medical pot that colorado now has is unconstitutional because its banned under federal law. I told him he was wrong, but am I? ive tried to find solid arguments on the web but cant find any.

 

[spidey07]

i just had a discussion with a friend who was saying that the constitution prevents Colorado from passing a law that restricts his rights granted by the Federal Constitution (for example, taking away my right to bear arms) also prevents a state from passing a law that grants rights banned by Federal law. like medical pot.

the last part of his argument i have issue with. he is saying the medical pot that colorado now has is unconstitutional because its banned under federal law. I told him he was wrong, but am I? ive tried to find solid arguments on the web but cant find any.

The constitution allows his state to allow it, that's the 10th amendment.

The supreme court bastardized the commerce clause that allowed federal to govern/prevent it. I forget the case but you can google it.
-edit-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

 

[MotF Bane]

IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
X: 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.

You are correct.

 

[woolfe9999]

i just had a discussion with a friend who was saying that the constitution prevents Colorado from passing a law that restricts his rights granted by the Federal Constitution (for example, taking away my right to bear arms) also prevents a state from passing a law that grants rights banned by Federal law. like medical pot.

the last part of his argument i have issue with. he is saying the medical pot that colorado now has is unconstitutional because its banned under federal law. I told him he was wrong, but am I? ive tried to find solid arguments on the web but cant find any.

You've asked two questions here.

First, can the state restrict rights that are guarenteed under the U.S. Constitution. The answer is NO. States can grant more rights, but not less, than the U.S. Constitution.

The second question is can a state legalize something not legal under federal law. The answer is no, under the supremacy clause of the Constitution. However, there is an argument (noted by posters above) about the reach and scope of the Commerce Clause. The argument is not that the federal prohibition of medical pot doesn't supercede state law because it does. The argument, rather, is that the Constitution doesn't grant the federal government the power to prohibit medical pot to begin with.

- wolf

 

[jdjbuffalo]

You've asked two questions here.

First, can the state restrict rights that are guarenteed under the U.S. Constitution. The answer is NO. States can grant more rights, but not less, than the U.S. Constitution.

The second question is can a state legalize something not legal under federal law. The answer is no, under the supremacy clause of the Constitution. However, there is an argument (noted by posters above) about the reach and scope of the Commerce Clause. The argument is not that the federal prohibition of medical pot doesn't supercede state law because it does. The argument, rather, is that the Constitution doesn't grant the federal government the power to prohibit medical pot to begin with.

- wolf

This

 

[Fern]

-snip-
the last part of his argument i have issue with. he is saying the medical pot that colorado now has is unconstitutional because its banned under federal law. I told him he was wrong, but am I? ive tried to find solid arguments on the web but cant find any.

Try this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/06/AR2005060600564.html

SCOTUS has already ruled that the Interstate Commerce Clause allows federal law to trump state medical pot laws. The basis for this ruling is found in the case Spidey07 links above.

Fern

 

[Fizzorin]

Also, just because the Fed law supercedes the State law (like pot) does not mean that the Fed can force the state to enforce Fed regulations. This is why medical pot is legal on the state level and illegal on the Fed level and people only get busted for it by a Fed agency... the states basically say that the commerce clause was applied improperly and they won't enforce it.

 

[Craig234]

This is basically right above. To put it another way, the federal government DOES have the power to invalidate any state's legalization of marijuana - as long as it can outlaw marijuana at all.

The question some raise is, is the US government acting withing the constitution to ban marijuana at all? This may seem settled law with nearly a century behind it, but some question it.

Of course if it's found that the federal government lacks the right to ban it, it's up to the state.

 

[Moonbeam]

Law can be rendered impotent if the people refuse to obey it and also refuse to convict.

 

[Vic]

Colorado's medicinal marijuana law cannot be "unconstitutional," it can just be superseded by federal law.

 

[shira]

States cannot grant rights, just as the federal government can't grant rights (absent a Constitutional amendment). I'm using the word "rights" here in the sense of "inalienable rights," not in the sense of benefits granted by government. "Inalienable" means that the government doesn't have the authority to take it away. If something CAN be taken away, then it's not a right.

Of course, there are areas where it's not clear if something is or is not a right, or what the extent of the right is. For example, for a very long while, it was an open question as to whether individuals had the right to own firearms. The fact that the Supreme Court recently decided that there is such a right doesn't mean that people have been GIVEN the right: The right was there all along, it just wasn't recognized as such.

Similarly, although almost everyone would agree that adults have the right to marry, it's not clear at this point what the extent of that right is. I believe that for the marriage right to mean anything, any one adult has the right to marry any other one adult. But clearly that's not the prevailing view right now. However, just as with the right to own firearms, when the Supreme Court ultimately decides (as it will, sooner or later) that any two adults have the right to marry each other, that won't be a granting of rights. It will merely mean that a right that was there all along is finally being recognized.

 

[Craig234]

States cannot grant rights, just as the federal government can't grant rights (absent a Constitutional amendment). I'm using the word "rights" here in the sense of "inalienable rights," not in the sense of benefits granted by government. "Inalienable" means that the government doesn't have the authority to take it away. If something CAN be taken away, then it's not a right.

Of course, there are areas where it's not clear if something is or is not a right, or what the extent of the right is. For example, for a very long while, it was an open question as to whether individuals had the right to own firearms. The fact that the Supreme Court recently decided that there is such a right doesn't mean that people have been GIVEN the right: The right was there all along, it just wasn't recognized as such.

Similarly, although almost everyone would agree that adults have the right to marry, it's not clear at this point what the extent of that right is. I believe that for the marriage right to mean anything, any one adult has the right to marry any other one adult. But clearly that's not the prevailing view right now. However, just as with the right to own firearms, when the Supreme Court ultimately decides (as it will, sooner or later) that any two adults have the right to marry each other, that won't be a granting of rights. It will merely mean that a right that was there all along is finally being recognized.

This isn't quite right.

First, "inaliable" rights is an opinion, not a law. You might think they're inalienable, but they're granted legally.

States CAN grant rights as well as the federal government, as long as the state doesn't violate the federal government.

And any 'inalienable' right in the constitution can be removed with a constitutional amendment. Free speech is gone as a legal right the moment the constitution is amended saying it is.

 

[Mike Gayner]

Does it matter? Americans don't give a shit about the constitution anymore - this is abundantly obvious.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This isn't quite right.

First, "inaliable" rights is an opinion, not a law. You might think they're inalienable, but they're granted legally.

States CAN grant rights as well as the federal government, as long as the state doesn't violate the federal government.

And any 'inalienable' right in the constitution can be removed with a constitutional amendment. Free speech is gone as a legal right the moment the constitution is amended saying it is.

Then the government needs to be held in check. You've cited a damn good reason not to trust it.

 

[Craig234]

Then the government needs to be held in check. You've cited a damn good reason not to trust it.

Both you and Mike Gayner posted unhelpful rants. The government is held in check by the constitution, enfored by the courts. What exactly are you saying about the government needing to be in check?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Both you and Mike Gayner posted unhelpful rants. The government is held in check by the constitution, enfored by the courts. What exactly are you saying about the government needing to be in check?

lol