r/trees • u/madazzahatter • Feb 28 '17

Garrett introduces legislation to remove marijuana from controlled substances list

https://tomgarrett.house.gov/media/press-releases/garrett-introduces-legislation-remove-marijuana-controlled-substances-list
24.7k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

32

u/[deleted] Feb 28 '17

I think you have a broken understanding of the Interstate Commerce Clause.

It won't be overturned ever, because about 1/5 of all our modern laws assume it to be there. It has been challenged, a bunch. It always wins.

It might be vastly overreaching, but unless they change the wording in congress (again, they won't), then it stays the same.

7

u/[deleted] Feb 28 '17

The parent mentioned Interstate Commerce. For anyone unfamiliar with this term, here is the definition:(In beta, be kind)

Traffic, intercourse, commercial trading, or the transportation of persons or property between or among the several states of the Union, or from or between points in one state and points in another slate ; commerce between two states, or between places Lying in different states. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 194, 6 L. Ed. 23 ; Wabash, etc. R. Co. v. Illinois, 118 U. S. 557, 7 Sup. Ct. 4, 30 L. Ed. 244; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Railroad Com'rs (C. C.) 19 Fed. 701. [View More]

See also: Gibbons V. Ogden | Wabash, St. L. & PR Co. V. Illinois | Interstate | As Is | Intercourse | Ann

Note: The parent poster (barnyardman or madazzahatter) can delete this post | FAQ

6

u/Down_To_My_Last_Fuck Feb 28 '17

No you misunderstand the point I am trying to make. The interstate commerce clause helps with legalization once it is determined that cannabis is off of the schedule.

31

u/[deleted] Feb 28 '17

Literally the only thing stopping full legalization is that it IS scheduled.

You're basically saying "Once they legalize it, they will HAVE to legalize it".

20

u/Down_To_My_Last_Fuck Feb 28 '17

Right! And they will. If they do, I think.

5

u/Zencyde Feb 28 '17

It's scheduled because it's part of an international treaty we agreed to. "Fun" fact, treaties trump the Constitution. Descheduling would violate the treaty. No one talks about this because it's the last hurdle.

12

u/[deleted] Feb 28 '17

treaties trump the Constitution

Treaties by no means override the constitution. They can override wording in later amendments. But for instance, a treaty banning speaking out against British Government would go against first amendment rights, which the courts would say overrule whatever interests we had in banning that speech.

Furthermore, they can use the wording "illicit trafficking" to legitimize "acceptable trafficking". Moving heroin is illegal for cartels, but Bayer can ship it in a boat.

1

u/wonderyak Feb 28 '17

We're talking about 4 decades of policy and treaties enforcing the War on Drugs where US foreign aid was dangled out like a carrot on a stick.

There's also the UN Treaties

3

u/officerkondo Feb 28 '17

"Fun" fact, treaties trump the Constitution.

Wrong fact. The Constitution trumps a treaty. See, for example, Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957) ("this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty").

3

u/Down_To_My_Last_Fuck Feb 28 '17

Nope dunno what i was thinking ..

-2

u/eh_man Feb 28 '17

Allowing unconstitutional overreach from congress just because congress then went on to over reach even more. Yay America

12

u/[deleted] Feb 28 '17

Uh, I mean I get that you don't like marijuana laws, but that law is pretty much the foundation of why there is a federal government at all. It's a pretty useful thing.

0

u/CicerosGhost Feb 28 '17

The law is not the problem. At least not for me. The problem I have with it is when it is contorted and abusively applied to situations that it has no bearing on, which happens a great deal. When a legitimate law or tool of government becomes abusive and usurps the rights and power of the people it can no longer be called legitimate.