> I wonder how many state has to legalize it before the federal government in USA is forced to change their classification.
It's already arguably legal under federal law under the equal protection clause because congress legalized it in DC. As far as I know the feds aren't locking anyone up for possession of small amounts.
In this case the author is talking about using the 14th amendment to strike down state laws, but I was just talking about federal law. E.g. if the federal government allows people in DC to do something, then it has to allow everyone else to do that thing also.
The author is right that strictly speaking the equal protection clause only applies to state laws, but the supreme court has also retroactively applied it to federal laws as well:
The parent post was arguing that it would be hard to prosecute marijuana possession under federal law because federal law allows possession in DC. The link argues that state laws against marijuana are not affected by federal law. So in Virginia, you won't be able to escape prosecution for marijuana possession under Virginia's law just because it is not illegal under federal law or another state's law.
You are not missing anything. The link does make the exact opposite point: "you will not be able to argue that you should be protected by the Constitution."
I would argue that the 10 amendment in the Bill of Rights is all that a person would need to nullify gross overreaches of power by the federal government.
In practice your assets will be civily forfeited, you'll be held in pre-trial detention (prison) for months, and then every lawyer will laugh you out of the room when you tell him you want to do a constitutional defense.
"Just take the plea, I can get them down to 2 years. Otherwise youre facing 9 to 20 years."
Not to point fingers, but I feel like some generations were sleeping hard on the government. The Constitution is almost entirely built to give citizens the power, and to limit the role of government as much as possible. And now society has fallen into a trap of misinformation and distraction. Can future generations push out the corrupt leaders after they pass away? #termlimitsoncongress
Who is this "they" you speak of? The citizens elected to govern? Or a shadowy cabal of unknown entities working in secret toward some ominous cause that ends in you being forced to do everything you don't want to do?
Honestly, follow any "we're all screwed our government sucks" logic train to its conclusion and you hit one of two conclusions: A) oh shit, it's actually my fault along with everyone else's that we're in this mess, B) conspiracy theory.
We do actually live in a representative democracy with checks and balances, and we do actually have the power to fix it if we choose to. We have a much better chance of changing things without resorting to violence than a pretty sizeable part of the planet.
"They" refers to anyone who is quite rich and or powerful, and actively uses those resources against others.
So when you start to wonder, "hmm, I wonder why housing is so expensive relative to my income", or, "hmm, I wonder why that policeman gave me a $400 ticket for 'speeding'", or, "hmm, I wonder why those federal agents are killing children in Waco", or, "hmm, I wonder why no bankers went to jail for fraudulent mortgage practices in 2008"...
... I mean, if you ask yourself these questions, and you tell me that these things are happening because we elected people to do these things, then I don't precisely know where you got that notion.
Good luck convincing the Supreme Court to upend the basis of a huge portion of federal law and decades of judicial precedence in favor of very broad readings of the enumerated powers.
How is that a broad reading? Under what reasonable interpretation of the Constitution does the federal government have the power to tell you not to grow plants on your own property for your own consumption?
The same law that’s been used to prosecute other crimes, the federal govt jurisdiction over interstate commerce.
That decision goes back to federal govt controls over wheat prices. Some guy said “i’ll grow what I want, I don’t care about the price controls” and the courts agreed with the twisted logic that it impact interstate commerce, thus they have the power to control it.
The logic in that case isn't really that twisted. One single guy growing more than allowed for personal use won't move the market but if the court ruled in his favor anyone would be able to do the same which would reduce the demand for wheat. If the government has the authority to regulate price controls at the national level control of all supply is kind of required.
You can argue that it's not a reasonable interpretation - I would agree with that. But it is a long-standing one, and there are a lot of things that the feds do today that hinge pretty much solely on it - and that includes pet issues for both the left and the right. Just to give one example, aside from enabling the feds to ban weed, Wickard also enables the feds to enforce the Civil Rights Acts. So it is very unlikely for that interpretation to go away - there's too much staked on it politically.
No, I'm saying the court's reading of the enumerated powers has become very broad.
As for what interpretation, the one held by Robert Jackson and 4 other justices in the Wickard v Filburn case [1]. The justices' interpretations are the only one with legal weight after all.
It's already arguably legal under federal law under the equal protection clause because congress legalized it in DC. As far as I know the feds aren't locking anyone up for possession of small amounts.
E.g.: https://novacriminalattorney.com/marijuana/marijuana-legaliz...