I was glad to have the opportunity to discuss something that rarely comes up in political debate these days, how the constitution actually applies. This time, California marijuana, prop 19, in the Huffington Post. Here’s how I was quoted:
“The federal government is only authorized to exercise those powers that ‘We the People’ delegated to it in the Constitution. Included among the myriad of constitutional violations from D.C. are federal laws that ban the use of cannabis. It is especially egregious when these laws are used to justify raids in states where the use and distribution of cannabis is expressly allowed by law. How many hundreds of thousands of people are going to be arrested before We the People say ‘enough is enough’? The time to end this unconstitutional, immoral, and costly federal war on people is now.
“At the Tenth Amendment Center, we see three options when it comes to cannabis laws on a state level: (1) legalize on a state level and reject federal laws; (2) criminalize on a state level and reject federal laws; or (3) keep the status quo. Since the Constitution doesn’t authorize the federal government to have any say whatsoever over whether cannabis should be legal OR illegal, option (3) is a non-starter for anyone claiming to be in favor of the Constitution. Putting this into practice, the only proper vote I can see is ‘yes’ on Proposition 19 — even though I do believe Prop. 19, as written, leaves much to be desired. Then, once the People of California have made the decision that they’re sick and tired of Washington D.C. waging an unconstitutional war on weed — and telling them what plants they can and cannot grow, sell and consume — then they can work to improve that state law how they see fit.”
Latest posts by Michael Boldin (see all)
- The 10th Amendment in One Lesson - July 29, 2016
- Liberty is the “Primary Object” - July 13, 2016
- Interview: Discussion with Mises Institute on Strategies for Liberty - July 12, 2016