The first three sections of the 28th set the tax system right. Moving on to Sections 4 through 7 the focus shifts to state's rights and budgetary controls. These four sections are made necessary by the broad affect of the Commerce Clause of the original Constitution. The Supreme Court in its interpretation has again used the Parthenon as an example of a Nebraska sod house. An important and unfortunate emergence caused by the Court's interpretation is the existence of an implicit uniform national standard. Sometimes a uniform standard is useful, but not all the time applied to all things. The Commerce Clause is carte blanche to dictate programs, entitlements, and the like among the states. Washington says: "If you want the money you will learn to do business like we do." The result is the Consolidated States of America versus the United States.
The intent of the original Constitution was to allow the States to distinguish themselves, but in the same stroke establish standards so that an ounce of gold in North Carolina was equal to an ounce of gold in New York. Standards like the ounce are indeed reasonable, but entitlements and social programs are the responsibility of the individual States. The state governments already have boots on the ground. Why risk making a mockery of the mission in the doing?
Section 4
All agencies, programs, entitlements and other devices that will be excised by budgetary requirements will be returned to the responsibility of the individual States. No federal regulations or legislation will dictate how the States fund or execute such devices.
This is a practical system wherein the States, still under the constraints of Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution, can manage public programs commensurate with local circumstances. The States distinguish themselves by governing how local circumstances are handled. But even still, Congress has hold of the reins with respect to distributed revenue first generated through the income tax described in Section 2. Section 5 limits Congress' ability to stretch it's authority.
The Congress may not make State eligibility for redistribution of revenue contingent on compliance with regulations or legislation that in effect is a nationally uniform standard.
Ultimately, we the People are the source of budgetary revenue, be it state or federal. Revenue comes from the pockets of real persons and funds the budget. Funding any project requires a few preconditions. Control over spending is merely right business. So we clamp down hard on priorities and remove one more angle Congress could use as economic intimidation.
Section 6
Those areas of federal responsibility prescribed by the original Constitution will have budgetary priority. No bill will be passed that funds any other concern without first meeting the budgetary requirements of these areas. No funding will be included in the budget for a concern that is the responsibility of and reserved to the States.
Last and arguably most important, it's time to correct the Commerce Clause. The founders didn't foresee the advent of virtual shop space. They lived in a world where wagons crossed state boundaries to get to market. Today, data packets cross state and national boundaries by the second. Even doing business at a local grocery store, most likely the point of sale is talking to a computer in some other state. Virtually every purchase that's made from national chains crosses state boundaries. Every purchase falls under the Commerce Clause. Finally, we face the last elephant standing. All of the previous sections are dominoes that have fallen, but are meaningless if this one remains standing.
Section 7
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution is hereby amended to read as follows: "To regulate commerce with foreign Nations and with the Indian Tribes."
The phrase "among the States" is notably missing. The great elephant itself is gone! Congress, having abused the interpretation of the Commerce Clause, can no longer lean on it. Section 7 completes a system of taxation and budgetary law that puts things right and forever prevents runaway spending. This amendment is more complete than any balanced budget amendment. It goes directly after the pain points that are causing the most trouble. Addressing the cause rather than legislating masks for the symptoms. The proposed 28th Amendment empowers the States, limits the power to tax, and constrains the extent of the budget. If Congress repeats history, it will do so outside of Constitutional boundaries. Send a copy of the proposed 28th Amendment to your representatives and while you're at it, tell them you want your money back.
You can find the complete proposed 28th Amendment here. Show your support for the authors who have put a great deal of thought into it.
Friday, April 22, 2011
The Twenty Eighth Section 1 - 3
The first three sections of the proposed 28th Amendment target taxes. The U.S. tax system is a behemoth. Everyone knows it. Little can been done to simplify and shrink the bloated jabberwock. Alexander Hamilton argued for the unlimited power to tax. Due respect to the Honorable Mr. Hamilton, unlimited power to tax is not necessary and will always be abused. What were you thinking?
When little or nothing can be done to prune unnecessary complexity, the thing to do is cut the vine off at the root and stand vigil until the monster is dead. That's exactly what Section 1 does.
The 16th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Repealing the 16th Amendment does not target the Federal Reserve, however the IRS is not sacrosanct and the tax code must come down with it. Section 1 undermines the Internal Revenue Act of 1913. Section 2 establishes the tax code in the Constitution. The distribution of a direct tax must be equally apportioned according to the census. No other revenue means is allowed, and a ceiling is established to cap federal revenue.
Congress may collect no revenue by any means other than a flat individual income tax not to exceed 15% of an individual's net earnings, a flat corporate tax not to exceed 10% of net revenues and actual user fees for services. All citizens and businesses shall be taxed at the same rate, and no exceptions, exemptions, or credits will be allowed.
The phrase 'not to exceed' can't be stressed enough. Congress will still establish the actual rate, but the tax itself is flat and no exemptions, less chance of corporations getting off easy. Effectively, this caps the tax rate but gives Congress the flexibility it needs to address national crises. Nevertheless, Congressional power to tax must be limited. Likewise, the power to invent the budget also must be limited. But we still have to face the unpredictable caveats. If the power to tax is curtailed, how are wars and responses to national emergencies paid for? Hence, Section 3:
A. Any budget passed by the Congress must be funded by actual revenues collected through taxes as described in Section 2. Except in time of War as defined below, no deficit spending, borrowing on future funds, borrowing from other entities or other mechanisms to meet budget requirements will be allowed.
B. For the purposes of this section, "War" shall be defined as hostilities declared by the President of the United States in the Constitutional role of Commander-in-Chief, and authorized by the Congress under the terms of the "War Powers Act" of 1973. Any funds borrowed shall be used exclusively for executing that War and shall be re-paid entirely no later than 15 years from the end of the War.
War is the only emergency specified in Section 3 and we might be tempted to include natural disasters, but then the definitions get slimy. What precisely, as in the War Powers Act of 1973, is a national disaster and how is it declared? In my opinion, it's better not to open that rabbit hole. There are other ways to manage those situations. The question not withstanding, overall this is a good start at reconstructing the U.S. tax system. Much more than just a straw man.
The next post will complete my review of the 28th. See the original proposed 28th Amendment here. Show the authors your support.
When little or nothing can be done to prune unnecessary complexity, the thing to do is cut the vine off at the root and stand vigil until the monster is dead. That's exactly what Section 1 does.
The 16th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Repealing the 16th Amendment does not target the Federal Reserve, however the IRS is not sacrosanct and the tax code must come down with it. Section 1 undermines the Internal Revenue Act of 1913. Section 2 establishes the tax code in the Constitution. The distribution of a direct tax must be equally apportioned according to the census. No other revenue means is allowed, and a ceiling is established to cap federal revenue.
Congress may collect no revenue by any means other than a flat individual income tax not to exceed 15% of an individual's net earnings, a flat corporate tax not to exceed 10% of net revenues and actual user fees for services. All citizens and businesses shall be taxed at the same rate, and no exceptions, exemptions, or credits will be allowed.
The phrase 'not to exceed' can't be stressed enough. Congress will still establish the actual rate, but the tax itself is flat and no exemptions, less chance of corporations getting off easy. Effectively, this caps the tax rate but gives Congress the flexibility it needs to address national crises. Nevertheless, Congressional power to tax must be limited. Likewise, the power to invent the budget also must be limited. But we still have to face the unpredictable caveats. If the power to tax is curtailed, how are wars and responses to national emergencies paid for? Hence, Section 3:
A. Any budget passed by the Congress must be funded by actual revenues collected through taxes as described in Section 2. Except in time of War as defined below, no deficit spending, borrowing on future funds, borrowing from other entities or other mechanisms to meet budget requirements will be allowed.
B. For the purposes of this section, "War" shall be defined as hostilities declared by the President of the United States in the Constitutional role of Commander-in-Chief, and authorized by the Congress under the terms of the "War Powers Act" of 1973. Any funds borrowed shall be used exclusively for executing that War and shall be re-paid entirely no later than 15 years from the end of the War.
War is the only emergency specified in Section 3 and we might be tempted to include natural disasters, but then the definitions get slimy. What precisely, as in the War Powers Act of 1973, is a national disaster and how is it declared? In my opinion, it's better not to open that rabbit hole. There are other ways to manage those situations. The question not withstanding, overall this is a good start at reconstructing the U.S. tax system. Much more than just a straw man.
The next post will complete my review of the 28th. See the original proposed 28th Amendment here. Show the authors your support.
Introducing the Twenty Eighth Amendment
There's a anti-war song with the refrain: "I know you're fit for fighting, but what are you fighting for?" That question has been roiling around in my head for months. When I ask people say they want their country back. "Let's get back to the Constitution," some say. The People obviously want a redress of grievances, but what is the compensation? If riding on the Constitution is how we arrived here, what do we mean by: get back to it? If a representative asked, how could I give a direct answer?
Maybe 'getting back' to the Constitution is only a truth in part while the real weight is a wish to revitalize the spirit wherein the original Constitution was created. However, the supreme law of the land has been patched twenty-seven times, the spirit threadbare and frayed. The original intent and meaning now vague and out of context, now we want to reengage the spirit of it's creation.
Reigniting the spirit of the Constitution implies 'cleaning house'. Clearing the cobwebs and polishing the tarnished, disposing the useless and protecting the treasured. A proposed 28th Amendment is a way to clean house without damaging the woodwork. The means to bring to bare the implements of political happiness sharpened and wielded with skill and care because these are ideas worth fighting for. Something meaningful when all it seems we have are grievances and the vote.
The proposed 28th Amendment consists of seven sections. Each section has a clear focus. The whole amendment can be divided into two areas of concern. The first three sections reinvent the tax system and establish a concise tax code. The last four sections focus on budgetary priorities and reestablish state's rights and standing. My next blog entry reprints sections 1 through 3 with commentary.
See the Proposed 28th Amendment here and lend some moral support to the authors.
Maybe 'getting back' to the Constitution is only a truth in part while the real weight is a wish to revitalize the spirit wherein the original Constitution was created. However, the supreme law of the land has been patched twenty-seven times, the spirit threadbare and frayed. The original intent and meaning now vague and out of context, now we want to reengage the spirit of it's creation.
Reigniting the spirit of the Constitution implies 'cleaning house'. Clearing the cobwebs and polishing the tarnished, disposing the useless and protecting the treasured. A proposed 28th Amendment is a way to clean house without damaging the woodwork. The means to bring to bare the implements of political happiness sharpened and wielded with skill and care because these are ideas worth fighting for. Something meaningful when all it seems we have are grievances and the vote.
The proposed 28th Amendment consists of seven sections. Each section has a clear focus. The whole amendment can be divided into two areas of concern. The first three sections reinvent the tax system and establish a concise tax code. The last four sections focus on budgetary priorities and reestablish state's rights and standing. My next blog entry reprints sections 1 through 3 with commentary.
See the Proposed 28th Amendment here and lend some moral support to the authors.
Monday, November 1, 2010
I Want My Money Back
If you really want to get your representative's attention, form a peaceful and legal insurrection by numbers. Vote with your dollars. Call or write today and ask for your money back. The more, the greater the influence. Email this to your representatives:
Dear [Representative],
Current events indicate the United States is in crises. Government services are stressed and people are somehow surviving without jobs. The Federal Government is funding itself in weekly increments. The people’s representatives are arguing party nonsense versus pragmatic solutions. Very little, if anything, is being accomplished to the people’s satisfaction.
Today the people are being taxed heavily and the social contracts drawn decades ago are being redrawn. When budget adjustments are made, it is done in the areas of education and social services for those unable to help themselves. Educating the young and willing, and taking care of the old and weak define the ethos of the United States. Education and caring for those who can not care for themselves are precisely what shouldn't be touched. They are cultural ideals. The economic future depends on the handling of both. Therefore, as my representative, I instruct you to put the real topical elephants on the table, support practical solutions, and do not suffer the quality of education and care for those who can't care for themselves.
“A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.” (Thomas Jefferson was the original Republican!)
The U.S. Government has shown through action and inaction that it cannot be trusted, especially with money. For these reasons, I am justified in requesting my money back, and being taken quite seriously in doing so. If government can't be relied upon, then give us our money back. We can put it to better use ourselves.
I Want My Money Back!
Cordially,
[Signature]
Dear [Representative],
Current events indicate the United States is in crises. Government services are stressed and people are somehow surviving without jobs. The Federal Government is funding itself in weekly increments. The people’s representatives are arguing party nonsense versus pragmatic solutions. Very little, if anything, is being accomplished to the people’s satisfaction.
Today the people are being taxed heavily and the social contracts drawn decades ago are being redrawn. When budget adjustments are made, it is done in the areas of education and social services for those unable to help themselves. Educating the young and willing, and taking care of the old and weak define the ethos of the United States. Education and caring for those who can not care for themselves are precisely what shouldn't be touched. They are cultural ideals. The economic future depends on the handling of both. Therefore, as my representative, I instruct you to put the real topical elephants on the table, support practical solutions, and do not suffer the quality of education and care for those who can't care for themselves.
“A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.” (Thomas Jefferson was the original Republican!)
The U.S. Government has shown through action and inaction that it cannot be trusted, especially with money. For these reasons, I am justified in requesting my money back, and being taken quite seriously in doing so. If government can't be relied upon, then give us our money back. We can put it to better use ourselves.
I Want My Money Back!
Cordially,
[Signature]
Saturday, October 23, 2010
The Party's Over
There's a common thread in our political system that began subtly as a polarization between Federalist and Anti-Federalist (or 'Anti's as they were called in the 1780s) . It's so common that it slips under our civic noses without a scent. It is simply the way things are and have been. The party system is even mistakenly thought to have been defined by the Constitution. Well, that's just rubbish. We are often somewhat predisposed to lend credibility to one party over the other. This common thread has nothing to do with issues, which is probably not surprising. Nope, the common thread is 'Party'. Here's what I mean:
A political party is a faction, plain and simple. James Madison warned about this kind of faction in the Federalist Papers (the documents most used by the Supreme Court to debate the vagaries of the Constitution). Madison knew that faction in politics was like air to fire. Politics is the air fueling emergent factions.
The primary political factions of the day are the longstanding Democratic and Republican parties. They have heritage, tradition, and money. But, platform has morphed into a set of social and political check boxes and buttons versus ideals of republican government. Buttons like abortion and religion. And it does seem obvious that each party's strategy is simply to obstruct the tactics of the other. To borrow a verse from Buffalo Springfield - If nobody's right, then everybody's wrong
We, the people, have representatives and delegates pointing fingers across aisles, espousing and repeating sugarcoated soundbites about the future that have no substance other than a leap of faith. The trouble is: do the parties deserve the people's faith. The parties are simply feuding factions, void of any meaningful practical use, it's members caught up in a feud for its own sake. A feud against anything that is not fit the predilection to principals. This situation is utterly dysfunctional and unsustainable.
A party must (1) have a defined platform that represents ideals people can believe in, and (2) must be tolerant of the differences and vagaries inherent in human ideals. In other words, let the individuals identify the party versus the party identifying individuals. The latter suppresses emerging ideas and reduces ideals to sacramental ideology. Ideals that could bare practical solutions to our common crises.
In short, a legal record of a mass of tallied votes, collected under legal democratic process, is the only faction of any consequence.
A political party is a faction, plain and simple. James Madison warned about this kind of faction in the Federalist Papers (the documents most used by the Supreme Court to debate the vagaries of the Constitution). Madison knew that faction in politics was like air to fire. Politics is the air fueling emergent factions.
The primary political factions of the day are the longstanding Democratic and Republican parties. They have heritage, tradition, and money. But, platform has morphed into a set of social and political check boxes and buttons versus ideals of republican government. Buttons like abortion and religion. And it does seem obvious that each party's strategy is simply to obstruct the tactics of the other. To borrow a verse from Buffalo Springfield - If nobody's right, then everybody's wrong
We, the people, have representatives and delegates pointing fingers across aisles, espousing and repeating sugarcoated soundbites about the future that have no substance other than a leap of faith. The trouble is: do the parties deserve the people's faith. The parties are simply feuding factions, void of any meaningful practical use, it's members caught up in a feud for its own sake. A feud against anything that is not fit the predilection to principals. This situation is utterly dysfunctional and unsustainable.
A party must (1) have a defined platform that represents ideals people can believe in, and (2) must be tolerant of the differences and vagaries inherent in human ideals. In other words, let the individuals identify the party versus the party identifying individuals. The latter suppresses emerging ideas and reduces ideals to sacramental ideology. Ideals that could bare practical solutions to our common crises.
In short, a legal record of a mass of tallied votes, collected under legal democratic process, is the only faction of any consequence.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Forty Years Ago Today
The Vietnam War came home on May 4, 1970. Today is the 40th anniversary of the Kent State Massacre. Four dead in Ohio. Days later, students were killed at Jackson State. It's often passed off on the victims, in the wrong place at the wrong time they say. They shouldn't have thrown stones, they say. Some were students walking between classes. The dead and wounded were arbitrary targets. So much for the 'victim' argument.
Where is the stone throwing "Public", the fist of a "Republic"? It disappeared along with the right of insurrection. We gave up the right of insurrection being too busy with the day-to-day; for example earning health care insurance, food, housing; not wishing to disrupt our happy lives. We are too focused on daily routines to be the Public in Republic. We are too busy to throw stones. However, the proverbial threat of stone-throwing is precisely what republican government requires from the public. The Democrats have focused on democratic process, and the Republicans have forgotten it's a Republic.
Where is the stone throwing "Public", the fist of a "Republic"? It disappeared along with the right of insurrection. We gave up the right of insurrection being too busy with the day-to-day; for example earning health care insurance, food, housing; not wishing to disrupt our happy lives. We are too focused on daily routines to be the Public in Republic. We are too busy to throw stones. However, the proverbial threat of stone-throwing is precisely what republican government requires from the public. The Democrats have focused on democratic process, and the Republicans have forgotten it's a Republic.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
The U.S. Constitution and State Medical Marijuana Laws
As I write this, fourteen states of the United States have decriminalized marijuana for medical use. Colorado is one of them and is another stage for a showdown between State Law and Federal Law. Colorado by no means stands alone in this distinction. There have been showdowns in other states. For example, a California woman's marijuana crop was seized and destroyed by the DEA even though it was clearly grown for personal consumption under California's medical marijuana legislation. On the surface, I reckon many people might think this is because of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary not withstanding.
Case law interprets the clause to mean State Law is trumped by Federal Law - "... Laws of any State to the contrary not withstanding." State Law can't overlay Federal Law because Federal Law is the supreme Law of the Land. What that means is the DEA can ignore state law and bust any marijuana user, grower, or dispensary regardless of state law. The Federal system functions with impunity despite the will of the People in fourteen States.
I can hear the opposition's argument based on Amendment 10 of the Constitution, the Sovereignty Clause. Some might say the Sovereignty Clause protects medical marijuana users.
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.
The first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, are based on the Articles of Confederation. The precursor to the Sovereignty Clause in the Articles of Confederation more clearly indicates the intentions of the authors than does Amendment 10 itself.
Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
However, the powers of the DEA are not connected to the Supremacy Clause or the Sovereignty Clause. The authority for the DEA to bust people growing for personal and medical consumption comes from the Commerce Clause.
[The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes
The California woman's lawyers maintained and clearly showed the marijuana plants were for personal consumption. But the Supreme Court decided regardless of that, growing one's own marijuana effects interstate traffic nonetheless. The woman didn't buy her marijuana from an interstate supply and her own crop was absent from the interstate traffic. Nevertheless, the marijuana was under Federal Law because interstate commerce could have been effected. There was no way of knowing the marijuana would not enter the interstate market. The woman was prosecuted despite California State Law and lost her law suit because interstate commerce was merely possible. Even though it was shown without a doubt that the crop was for personal use and would not ever be sold or transported over state boundaries. The Commerce Clause was brought into play because of another clause of the Constitution called the "Necessary and Proper Clause" .
The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
What all these clauses have in common is the standing of State Sovereignty and the Sovereignty of the People against the standing of Federal Sovereignty. Legal experts who have experience with the U.S. Attorney General's office have said that the now infamous memo containing the Obama Administration's directive to back off medical marijuana states is the most ambiguous directive they have ever read.
It seems that the Federal Government can enforce the Commerce Clause on the speculation of interstate commerce. It's a law you don't have to directly break. In reality no law was broken. Prosecution was on the speculation that the plants could be transported across state boundaries. A person can be prosecuted on the mere possibility that a law could be broken. It's like being pulled over for speeding because, even though you didn't, hypothetically you could have broken the speed limit.
Justice Clarence Thomas stated his dissent over the case very clearly:
"The respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything – and the federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers."
What is important to observer is a grassroots mindset has grown strong enough to pass marijuana decriminalization laws. The will of the population is poking up through local legislation; having rooted itself, it is now making itself seen.
The functional structure of the U.S. government is better described as a federation of Corporate Operations under two factions (the Democratic Party and the Republican Party). It's reasonable to ask if a grassroots movement can break the surface of the corporate landscape? As long as there's a way to make money at it, a corporation will use all its legal force to find loopholes. It's what happens when something new is accepted to the free market. Corporations will follow the money as soon as the liability is low enough.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary not withstanding.
Case law interprets the clause to mean State Law is trumped by Federal Law - "... Laws of any State to the contrary not withstanding." State Law can't overlay Federal Law because Federal Law is the supreme Law of the Land. What that means is the DEA can ignore state law and bust any marijuana user, grower, or dispensary regardless of state law. The Federal system functions with impunity despite the will of the People in fourteen States.
I can hear the opposition's argument based on Amendment 10 of the Constitution, the Sovereignty Clause. Some might say the Sovereignty Clause protects medical marijuana users.
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.
The first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, are based on the Articles of Confederation. The precursor to the Sovereignty Clause in the Articles of Confederation more clearly indicates the intentions of the authors than does Amendment 10 itself.
Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
However, the powers of the DEA are not connected to the Supremacy Clause or the Sovereignty Clause. The authority for the DEA to bust people growing for personal and medical consumption comes from the Commerce Clause.
[The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes
The California woman's lawyers maintained and clearly showed the marijuana plants were for personal consumption. But the Supreme Court decided regardless of that, growing one's own marijuana effects interstate traffic nonetheless. The woman didn't buy her marijuana from an interstate supply and her own crop was absent from the interstate traffic. Nevertheless, the marijuana was under Federal Law because interstate commerce could have been effected. There was no way of knowing the marijuana would not enter the interstate market. The woman was prosecuted despite California State Law and lost her law suit because interstate commerce was merely possible. Even though it was shown without a doubt that the crop was for personal use and would not ever be sold or transported over state boundaries. The Commerce Clause was brought into play because of another clause of the Constitution called the "Necessary and Proper Clause" .
The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
What all these clauses have in common is the standing of State Sovereignty and the Sovereignty of the People against the standing of Federal Sovereignty. Legal experts who have experience with the U.S. Attorney General's office have said that the now infamous memo containing the Obama Administration's directive to back off medical marijuana states is the most ambiguous directive they have ever read.
It seems that the Federal Government can enforce the Commerce Clause on the speculation of interstate commerce. It's a law you don't have to directly break. In reality no law was broken. Prosecution was on the speculation that the plants could be transported across state boundaries. A person can be prosecuted on the mere possibility that a law could be broken. It's like being pulled over for speeding because, even though you didn't, hypothetically you could have broken the speed limit.
Justice Clarence Thomas stated his dissent over the case very clearly:
"The respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything – and the federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers."
What is important to observer is a grassroots mindset has grown strong enough to pass marijuana decriminalization laws. The will of the population is poking up through local legislation; having rooted itself, it is now making itself seen.
The functional structure of the U.S. government is better described as a federation of Corporate Operations under two factions (the Democratic Party and the Republican Party). It's reasonable to ask if a grassroots movement can break the surface of the corporate landscape? As long as there's a way to make money at it, a corporation will use all its legal force to find loopholes. It's what happens when something new is accepted to the free market. Corporations will follow the money as soon as the liability is low enough.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
