From: Ryan Gill (rmgill@mindspring.com)
Date: Fri Sep 13 2002 - 11:59:35 PDT
At 2:03 PM -0400 9/13/02, Steve Grammont wrote:
> >That sounds like an Interstate Commerce Clause challenge. If it
>>wasn't going to be sold outside of CA, then the feds don't really
>>have legal jurisdiction.
>
>Ryan, you sure about that? I thought the Feds could confisicate any
>property owned/used by drug producers/transporters/dealers for that
>reason alone.
I'm merely theorizing. Congress has usurped quite a bit of power that
they aren't authorized under the Commerce Clause portions of the
Constitution.
California passed laws making the use of medical marijuana legal
under controlled conditions. It wasn't to be sold outside of the
State. That would, based on my understanding of what defines
"interstate commerce" as being outside the scope of federal
jurisdiction. Congress tends to write laws that rely on a butterfly
principle of interstate commerce.
One local law enforcement agency challenged part of the Brady Bill
years ago that required local law enforcement to bear the cost of
enforcing federal requirements. That was deemd unconstitutional.
Printz vs US iirc.
--
Ryan Gill rmgill@SPAMmindspring.com
----------------------------------------------------------
| | | -==----
| O--=- | | /_8[*]°_\
|_/|o|_\_| | _________ | /_[===]_\
/ 00DA61 \ |/---------\| __/ \---
_w/|=_[__]_= \w_ // [_] o[]\\ _oO_\ /_O|_
|: O(4) == O :| _Oo\=======/_O_ |____\ /____|
|---\________/---| [__O_______W__] |x||_\ /_||x|
|s|\ /|s| |s|/BSV 575\|s| |x|-\| |/-|x|
|s|=\______/=|s| |s|=|_____|=|s| |x|--|_____|--|x|
|s| |s| |s| |s| |x| |x|
'60 Daimler Ferret '42 Daimler Dingo '42 Humber MkIV (1/3)
----------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Apr 23 2003 - 13:21:21 PDT