LISNews: Librarian News

OK, I will. I'll let you know when my Congress gets around to agreeing on changing the law.

Why should federal law trump state law in this case? As GregS indicates, it's hard to see this as an interstate commerce issue.There's also the ninth amendment:"Amendment XThe 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."I have to reluctantly agree that this decision is the law of the land; but I hope I hope that individuals and local communities pursue a course of non-cooperation.You have to wonder what powers the States and localities are going to be left with after a few more decades of bipartisan Washington expansion.

As a matter of fact, I do believe that federal drug laws are an unconstitutional trampling of states rights and a waste of limited federal resources. I can accept federal prohibitions on transporting drugs across state lines since that can be logically construed as a commerce issue.Smiling at the irony of the situation, I draw your attention to Justice Clarence Thomas' dissent on this decision. Two paragraphs I find especially interesting and well reasoned are:

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.

and

In Lopez, I argued that allowing Congress to regulate intrastate, noncommercial activity under the Commerce Clause would confer on Congress a general “police power� over the Nation. 514 U.S., at 584, 600 (concurring opinion). This is no less the case if Congress ties its power to the Necessary and Proper Clause rather than the Commerce Clause. When agents from the Drug Enforcement Administration raided Monson’s home, they seized six cannabis plants. If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress’ Article I powers–as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause–have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to “appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce.� United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 627 (2000) (Thomas, J., concurring).

So birdie, how does it feel to be on the same side of the law as Clarence Thomas? We live in interesting times!

But its the Federal Government that works to keep illegal drugs from coming into the country. I don't see how you can have a situation where Federal Law Enforcement officials are raiding planes and boats bringing marijuana into the country meanwhile California residents are growing it in their backyard. It just doesn't make sense.