A confusing and arguably disturbing trend in America these days (if you're a fan of the federal system our Constitution has enshrined) is that states (mostly through voter initiative) are asserting their 10th Amendment rights of reserved powers in the face of established Congressional legislation. I'm all about states' rights and liberty, but we can't ignore the Constitution. Does Colorado have it wrong by legalizing pot?
Who's your daddy, Colorado?
With Federal law winning as a default (according to the supremacy clause) of conflicts between state and federal law, isn't it contradictory of the 10th amendment's purpose? How do we solve problems like the one displayed about marijuana in the article if two such statements were made in the constitution?
ReplyDeleteLyndsey Chu, P2
I am also confused on how there could be two contradictory policies, the Supremacy Clause and the 10th Amendment, in the Constitution. It sounds like the National government and the State governments are both trying to vastly limit one another's abilities.
Delete-Madison Rhind p.3
The National government can only act if the amendment is enumerated, but no where in the Constitution does it say that the National government obtains the power to ban the use of Marijuana; or any drug for that matter. How could an argument even be implicitly presented to say that drugs need to be illegal for the National government to effectively continue its enumerated acts? There is no need for the National government to get involved because this topic does not fit within their actions.If the 10th Amendment allows the reserved powers to take action on anything that is not a job of the National government or prohibited to states, why can't the individual states decide on what laws should be put into policy? Within this amendment, the states should be allowed to deal with substances such as drugs in any manner that they choose.
ReplyDelete-Madison Rhind p. 3
The National government doesn't have a say in the conflict of whether marijuana is illegal. Since it is not enumerated in the Constitution that the national government has the power over drugs, states should have full authority on whether they want to legalize drugs in their respective states. I think that the national government could be fearful of the money that could come from these business and don't want the states to gain more power.
ReplyDelete-Jeric Gaddi p.3
Doesn't the supremacy clause counteract the purpose of federalism in a way? The state governments and national government are suppose to check each other, yet, in the end, if state law and federal law oppose each other, then federal law wins. So if a state disagrees with federal law, their legislature can't make a law to counteract it. Doesn't that take away a state's voice and facilitate tyranny of the majority?
ReplyDelete-Tiffany Lu, P.2
The National government essentially, has no say in the matter of the states if the matter is not within the constitution (according to the 10th amendment). But the National government passed the controlled substance act which allows them to prohibit and control controlled substances such as marijuana. It surprised me that congress was able to pass that act because they linked it to the right to control commerce in the constitution and I don't really see how that in any way would be connected with the use of marijuana in the states. So technically speaking, Colorado is breaking the federal law and the use of controlled substances being legal is unfortunately for them, linked to the constitution through the controlled substance act.
ReplyDelete-Will Montgomery p.2
I understand that the Federal Law wins against disputes between states. I also understand why Nebraska and Oklahoma had the issue against Colorado. However, in this case, the CSA lists marijuana in Schedule I for having no accepted medical use, but if it's accepted as medical use in some states, does the Federal system have a right to tell the states they can't make it legal? If its not clearly emanated in the constitution, the federal system would have to stretch far to find a implied statement for why states can't have that power.
ReplyDelete-Alyssa Hill, P.2
I think that the national government should itself be held responsible for the specific statement of it being "at risk." Regardless of opinion, Colorado did in fact legalize marijuana-it happened- so now when the perception of a weak national government arises, it arises solely from the fact that to this day it is still legal. The national government did not necessarily punish the state government, and as a result of that other states have added marijuana propositions to their own ballots and most recently even California passed the prop allowing the substance. The Supremacy Clause is but another piece of legislation that gives the federal government the authority over the state government; with that in mind, the risk of a weakening national government was only brought upon by the sedentary national government itself.
ReplyDeleteAmani Ali P.2
I find it ironic that if there is a dispute between states and federal government, the government is guaranteed the win. If federalism allows the states and the national government to have split powers and harmony, how can the majority of the government automatically overpower? The national government has its enumerated powers in the Constitution and its implied powers as well. So, why can it limit the states' powers when the 10th Amendment gives states their own powers?
ReplyDeleteI believe that the state of Colorado has a point for itself because under the Constitution, states can do anything that isn't controlled federally and is not unconstitutional. On many issues states should be able to decide whether something is legal or not, because we could make many of the same arguments for other issues such as gun control, and marriage rights given to the states. As true as the CSA states that Colorado cant allow marijuana, the constitution gives the state of Colorado the right to call its own shot on this issue. because even though the Supremacy clause gives the nod to the Federal government, this was not a Federal issue in their control to begin with.
ReplyDeleteChristopher Ramirez, P.3
I do not understand how the national government has a say in any of this because there is no enumerated power saying anything about the ban of drugs. Therefore, would that not result in a reserved power which means that this is an issue for the states to resolve. And I don't think that the ban of drugs could be an implied power where it would help execute one of the enumerated powers. So I believe that this is not an issue for the national government to discuss rather it should be up to the states on whether or not they ban certain drugs.
ReplyDeleteJames Lee p.3
Oklahoma and Nebraska do have a point in that Colorado's legalization violates the supremacy clause, as marijuana is illegal federally and therefore should overrule what any state says otherwise. But, the claim that Colorado's action is unconstitutional is hypocritical, at least on the national government's part. Congress isn't enumerated the power to create drug laws in the Constitution. Of course, whether or not this should be considered an implied power is up for debate as well. But regardless, I feel like that topic should be receiving more political attention than Colorado, especially because if it was found that Congress's Controlled Substances Act is unconstitutional we wouldn't be even discussing Colorado and the supremacy clause at all.
ReplyDeleteMatthew Stewart, P.2
The states have the right, according to the tenth amendment, to make their own laws as long as it is not a power given to the national government or prohibited to the states. It must be an implied power of the national government to place a ban on drugs like marijuana, but what enumerated power does the national government have that is stated in the Constitution requires the ban on marijuana in order to be carried out? If there is no evident connection between this implied power and the enumerated powers stated in the Constitution, then the states should have the right to ban or legalize whatever they please as long as it does not violate the tenth amendment.
ReplyDeleteCassidy Wagner, p.2
Although the Federal law should overrule the State law of legalizing Marijuana, the overrule should only take place if it is determined the National government is using its enumerated or implied power. However, what should really be checked is whether the CSA itself is constitutional because the CSA is based on the constitutional power to regulate INTERstate commerce. But if Colorado is keeping it's Marijuana within the state, the legalization of Marijuana does not affect interstate commerce and so then shouldn't the Federal Government be unable to apply the CSA because it is only applicable if the Marijuana is being sold over state lines?
ReplyDeleteOmar Moiz, P.2
Now you're thinking!
DeleteUnfortunately, the Supreme Court has ruled that it is impossible for a state to keep marijuana within its borders. For that reason, it falls under interstate commerce.
Colorado should not have legalized marijuana, but it still did. It is not like Colorado's legislators did not know what they were doing. They intentionally disregarded the CSA and went behind the federal government's back. Despite this, nothing has truly happened to try to stop this, so why would Colorado try to reverse its policy on pot. The attorney general has had over a year to make its case in court and only those directly affected by it, Nebraska and Oklahoma seemed to truly care. This situation is analogous to raising a bad child. If the bad behavior is never reinforced, do not expect the behavior to change. Lincoln taught the southern states that they could not secede by fighting a civil war. Today, the central government still retains its power, but if it's negligence towards the states continues there will be consequences. Probably not as drastic as those featured in the article, but the nation will likely become increasingly divided.
ReplyDeleteRobert Snyder P. 2
I'm with you . . . we're sending the states mixed messages. Essentially, if a state's law contradicts a particular majority's politics, then the national government will go afer it (like Obama did with Arizona), but if a state's actions coincides with my politics, I'll leave it alone. Keep in mind that Colorado is also a "swing state" in presidential politics.
DeleteUltimately, Colorado is in the wrong. According to the article, "Under the supremacy clause of the Constitution, when federal and state law clash, federal law wins." This provision clearly states that Colorado in no way has the right to defy the rules of the CSA. By doing this, Colorado sets a precedence of state defiance that could essentially put the entire government structure at risk.
ReplyDeleteLainey Gerber p.5
Although the establishment of the Supremacy Clause would give the CSA the upperhand in this conflict, this particular case shouldn't involve the national government in the first place. Not only is this substance not enumerated in the Constitution (leaving it to be deemed necessary or implied in order for the National government to take charge) but Colorado, under ammendment 10, is using its reserved powers to enforce what they believe to be right. In this particular issue it is the right of the state to make this decision.
ReplyDeleteJocelyn Ayers p.3
Federalism seems so grey to me at this point. All these "implied" rules and regulations confuse me on who actually holds the power. I do understand the issue of the states having too much power but then why did the framers give so much power in the first place? They want to limit power so much that no one seems to be in power at one moment and then the next too many powers are competing at once. It was essentially given to the states only for it to be deemed unconstitutional and be taken away and given to the national government. I wish there was a smarter way to go about distributing the power but it seems that the people, state government or national government can't agree. So until that can happen we are trapped in this cycle of court cases and long processes to solve our problems...
ReplyDeleteLauren Hartogh (period 3)
Welcome to American government and politics! It's messy and confrontational (and almost cost us union with the Civil War), but somehow we have managed to keep this broken marriage of fifty wives, I mean states, in tact over the last 230 years. But as we'll see in class, power has gradually shifted toward the national government over the last 150 years and states' rights has diminished.
DeleteWell, for starters the quote about the states being able to override laws that the nation government makes, I agree with. Sometimes the states must obey the national government, on certain things. Now, they don't always have to agree and the states could override immoral acts and even things that might harm their economy; but to say that the states have all the power that really isn't a united nation rather separate countries that refuse to listen to their parent. Again, states can exercise their right to deny laws by the national government, but there must always be an exception to the extent that the states can exercise this power. But what I don't understand is, how if the national government is the central ponit, why is it always overruled by the smaller branches, even though minority rules over majority, isn't that the minority is abusing the privileges that was given to them; if so why no try to encourage more listenong to the government?
ReplyDelete(Alexia Tejeda period 3)
As decentralized as the U.S government aims to be, the Supremacy Clause causes the Constitution to enforce sovereign power similar to that of a unitary system. (The Constitution with the supreme authority) Although the Constitution can be amended, immediate debates of state and national power will still arise. In this case, the debate is over who holds the power to legalize marijuana. Colorado has NO reserved power that allows them, or any other state, to legalize ANY controlled substance. If the CSA (In essence, the national government) deems it fit for marijuana to be legalized, then it will use its implied powers do so. As for now, potheads must continue to smoke in the shadows.
ReplyDeleteSebastian Arceo
Period 5
States still technically have the reserved power to legalize marijuana but unfortunately in this case their pursuit of their 10th Amendment powers has run into the equally Constitutional pursuit of the national government's implied power. When two levels of government pursue their power but one contradicts the other, the national reigns supreme according to the Supremacy Clause (see Article VI Clause 2).
DeleteIsn't this article a clear example of the argument for the other side? That rather, instead of this being a violation of national government action that is ultimately supposed to trump states authority, an frightening issue on the infringement of state's rights? If the supremacy clause was created so that federal law always win, then I'm confused on how the 10th amendment works. Although I understand the argument on how it violates the CSA, to make such a quick jump to it being a foreseeable cause in states disregarding federal laws feels unlikely (also the examples provided felt like a stretch, but maybe that was just me). Personally, I don't see how the involvement of the government was needed in the first place, but how could our framers have known that? And thus that leads us back to the supremacy clause and the understandings of enumeration and implication...
ReplyDeleteParis Barraza
Period 5
I like the way you're wrestling with this stuff! See my comment above . . . it might help clear things up.
DeleteWhile I understand that Colorado broke federal law regarding the legalization of marijuana I believe that the federal government stretched their implied powers too thin. The 10Th amendment gives the states the right to decide their own laws as long as they do not interfere with the powers given to the national government or prohibited to the states. I believe that since it does not interfere with anything written in the constitution the states have a right to decide whether they can legalize marijuana or not. I’m not sure why the supreme court decided that the CSA was constitutional but it seems that it is an abuse of their powers as the passing of the act wasn’t” necessary to carry out the enumerated.” Besides the supremacy clause that allows the federal law to win when state and fed clash gives the national government a lot of control over the states.
ReplyDeleteAndrea Campos Period 5
After todays class lecture I assumed that it was safe to say that the states, basically, had more "power" than the federal government. I was under the impression that the states can propose any law they please if it' not given to the national or prohibited by the constitution. It's weird to read for the first time that, that in fact, if there were to be any conflict between federal and states, that the states would win. If that is truly the case then it seems as if federalism has not served its purpose and that the states are being deprived of any true power. But another side of me says that, at least on the topic of marijuana, that giving the Colorado the power thats stated in the 10th amendment could cause an upheaval of irrational or harmful laws in the future of that state and many more if the federal government doesn't do anything about it.
ReplyDeleteJumana Roufail, P.2
Whoops. Correction: if there were to be any conflict between federal and states, federal would win.
DeleteIf the states before 1860 could somehow come back to life today, they would be appalled by the growth of national (federal) power and sickened by the assault on states' rights. But it's a different America today than the one created in 1787. We are truly a NATIONAL country, a more perfect UNION, more perfect than the Framers could have imagined. But to get this kind of UNITY, a little states' rights had to be sacrificed along the way.
DeleteI am glad that throughout the process of reading this article it reminded me so much of 5th periods lecture today about the national and states acting abilities. When something is either enumerated or implied the National Gov. has the right to act if necessary but no where in the Constitution does it state the marijuana is illegal. So I don't understand what the big fuss is about? If Amendment 10 states that the states have the right to act if its not given to the national or prohibited... so why cant the states decide whether or not they want marijuana legalized? How can the national government bring up this implied argument and actually say that drugs specifically marijuana needs to be illegal in order for them to continue to carry out the enumerated acts. So overall I just see no point in the involvement of the national government.
ReplyDeleteMirna Munoz Period 5
If the national can act, it will. And it has for decades. And for the most part, the Supreme Court has upheld this gradual expansion of national power through a very broad interpretation of its powers.
DeleteThe Constitution of the United States does not explicitly state that the national government has the power to control the use of drugs/substances. Also, the national government does not need to control drugs in order to carry out the enumerated tasks. Thus, the federal government should not have any power over the use of drugs and it should be up to the states to decide. Colorado is just using its power as a state to create laws, which is granted under the 10th amendment.
ReplyDelete- Gursimran Bains (Period 3)
Okay so, I have to agree in this situation that the federal government should win this one. It clearly says in the beginning of the article that the CSA act was passed by CONGRESS in 1970 meaning that any violation regarding drugs is included in that CSA act that is a FEDERAL rule. The author is right about the drug being schedule 1 drug. In my forensics class at the school a schedule 1 drug is a drug that is NOT deemed necessary for medical purposes, is highly addictive, harmful, and illegal. Colorado is not following the rules of congress and if the national government has banned it, it should be banned in the states too. The framers said in any case of argument the federal government would win, not the state government. So, even though it is not an enumerated law, it was suggested by Congress and passed because it was necessary that it be banned. And why is I necessary that it is banned? Because it is in the most highly dangerous schedule of drugs. I see it as congress looking out for "the people" so Colorado should not have authority to deem a schedule 1 drug legal an the state is in violation of Congress and the CSA law passed.
ReplyDeleteAbeegail Meyer p.3
I'm wondering if the national government could have ever gotten away with defining different categories of drugs back in the early 1800s. It would have been inconceivable. Now, the national acts in traditional state affairs and we hardly blink an eye as a nation.
DeleteThe entire concept of the supremacy clause completely contradicts the core values of federalism. If the nation's goal is to find a balance of power between state governments and the national government, then how is it fair to hand one side an advantage every time they clash? Furthermore, I believe the national government is in the wrong in this situation. Nowhere in the constitution, is there an enumerated power to ban drugs. Nor is there an enumerated power that requires the ban of drugs in order to be carried out. The state of Colorado is simply utilizing its power in the 10th amendment to make their own laws. The federal law should have no say in this issue and the supremacy clause is easily shot down as the states should be the only ones resolving it.
ReplyDelete- Noah Rico (Period 5)
"The entire concept of the supremacy clause completely contradicts the core values of federalism."
DeleteIt makes you wonder what kind of union the Framers were truly after. That's why the states' rights movement persisted for so long, well into the 1850s and up until the Civil War. The Constitution was not clear regarding the true delineation between state and national power. That's why one person could claim national supremacy (Hamilton) and another could claim states' rights (Jefferson).
The national government was never given the power to regulate drugs explicitly in the Constitution, but it somehow managed to argue that it had the implied power to do so in order to carry out some other enumerated power. Regardless of whether the states or even the people think that the national government should or should not have the power to regulate drugs, the people who decide if the Constitution grants them this power, the Supreme Court, has given them this power by not declaring it unconstitutional. Just because states don't agree with a law doesn't mean they have the power to ignore it. This kind of conflict led to the nullification crisis that we just read about and ultimately to the Civil War, granted this is a much smaller issue, but it is still the same principles being argued. The Constitution says that in a conflict between state and national law, the national government always win, which means that Colorado's legalization of pot is unconstitutional, whether the states agree with it or not.
ReplyDelete-Claire Williams p. 3
Well said!
DeleteThe National Government does not have a say in whether drugs are illegal or not. nor does the constitution give the national government enumerated or implied powers on the matter. Therefore, States have the power to make any type of drug laws they want regardless of the federal controlled substance act (CSA). The only reason the CSA band weed was because of social elites interest to do so. I would also like to include that the supposed drug war that our nation is dealing with has the CIA involved in illegal activities to make money to fund personal interests. But it is not only the CIA several other countries are doing the same thing.
ReplyDeletehttps://mediaroots.org/opium-what-afghanistan-is-really-about/
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-real-drug-lords-a-brief-history-of-cia-involvement-in-the-drug-trade/10013
-Imran jalal
The Tenth Amendment states that the federal government only possesses the powers stated in the Constitution, which gives all remaining powers to the states. Nowhere in the Constitution is it enumerated that the federal government possesses the power to say that marijuana is illegal or not. From this information, the federal government has no power in making marijuana illegal or not, handing the power over to the states. With the federal law winning over the dispute with the supremacy clause, wouldn’t that contradict everything laid out in the amendment? According to the amendment, the federal government has no business in dealing with this affair. Colorado has the right in legalizing marijuana, however as depicted in the article, the federal government intervened. Overall, I just don’t understand how the federal government was able to intervene with state law affairs.
ReplyDelete-Kennedy Madrid Period 5
It is somewhat difficult to tell whether or not Colorado has done something wrong because yes, the federal government issued the CSA, which classified marijuana as listed in Schedule I, so it could be seen as violating the central government's regulations. However, Colorado is not the only state to legalize marijuana, so why only fixate on Colorado? A good amount of other states have legalized both medical marijuana and marijuana for recreational use, which makes the CSA's regulations look laxly enforced. Besides, even if making marijuana illegal was enumerated, that still would not stop the purchase and selling of marijuana because there would be no way for the government to regulate that. This is similar to the 18th amendment during the Prohibition, which opened the door to more crime for the government to worry about than before alcohol was prohibited, resulting in the government going through even MORE trouble to make an amendment to overturn it. Therefore, some issues are better left to the states rather than the central government going through even more trouble to enforce regulations upon all states. With that being said, the 10th amendment does play an important role here because marijuana was classified under Schedule I by the CSA, but Colorado could have found a loophole. It stated that Schedule I's classified drugs have no medical use, however, Colorado did utilize medical marijuana, which could be argued against the CSA's substance classifications.
ReplyDeleteKyla Wheeler (p. 2)
Maybe our national government is having a "prohibition" moment right now and realizing that it's too difficult to enforce a national policy against drugs. We are witnessing a gradual dismantling of national policy right now. Unless the national pushes back and enforces its own laws, it will be too late and Congress will be forced to revise its drug policy.
DeleteThe CSA is in fact a law and should be followed by the states. The author has a point, this may set a dangerous precedent for states to ignore federal laws that are actually helpful. The CSA law to its core though, I believe, is a violation of civil liberties. No form of government, state or federal, should be able to regulate what you do with your body. If you want to destroy it with drugs you should be able to. The government does not interfere when people consume alcohol, junk food or tobacco, so why should these particular drugs be any different. In summary, federal law should be enforced, but in this case the particular law is outdated, backwards and is in dire need of revision.
ReplyDeleteChandler Sallaberria P.3
When I first read the article it seemed as though Colorado was in the wrong because I thought that the formation of the CSA could be an implied power from the enumerated power that Congress can regulate commerce. But in tonight's reading it differentiated interstate commerce (which Congress controls) and intrastate commerce (which each state controls) and legalizing/selling marijuana within the state of Colorado is clearly intrastate commerce. But if Nebraska and Oklahoma 's claims that Colorado's marijuana is flowing into their borders is true that would technically be interstate commerce which the national government can regulate. But then how could Colorado prevent this overflow from happening?
ReplyDeleteNatalie Tang P.3
It can't. And that is why the federal courts have said that drugs are inherently interstate commerce. Excellent post; I like the way you think!
DeleteWhile Colorado's legalization of marijuana violates the CSA, I don't see how the CSA itself falls into the category of implied powers; that being said, the validity of the "correct opinion" itself is debatable. Although Colorado's legalization of marijuana is technically unconstitutional, the terms under which it is unconstitutional lend themselves to the values and beliefs of opposing sides more than legality (which is questionable on both ends).
ReplyDeleteJulia Hernandez P.3
The federal government issued the CSA, which could be seen as violating federal regulations. Moreover it should not be that way, as no government should have the authority to regulate a law regarding one's freedom of consuming anything and in this case , Marijuana.
ReplyDeleteKaren Girgis p.2
Colorado's legalization of marijuana does in fact contradict the national governments CSA law. Because of this, Colorado should not have passed the law and Nebraska and Oklahoma are in the right. But due to the subject not being enumerated in the constitution and not closely related to the upholding of policies enumerated in the constitution, the CSA law should not have been created. Colorado is technically going against the national government by passing the law on marijuana, yet the national government is essentially wrong in creating the CSA. The national government should take this as an opportunity to not punish Colorado, but to reconsider CSA.
ReplyDeleteAshley Quintana
p.3
To me, the Supremacy clause in the Constitution is very confusing. I do not know if it how the author described it or if it really does just make no sense. I am so confused because it says in the article that the Supremacy Clause is "When federal and state law clash, federal law wins.", but we also learned in class that the states have can enforce their own laws as long as they do not interfere with the national government. How can the national government pass a law that basically is taking back what it said before? Besides that confusion I don't feel that the national government can interfere in this issue. The state of Colorado all voted and chose to legalize marijuana, and the Constitution makes no statement about ridding the country of marijuana (except for this confusing Supremacy Clause). It is the right of the people to use marijuana just like it is the right of the people to smoke tobacco or drink alcohol. In class tomorrow I would love to have an understanding of this Supremacy Clause Mr. Cavanaugh.
ReplyDelete-Wyatt Lemoine period:2
You bet!
DeleteI am torn, I understand that nowhere in the Constitution marijuana is enumerated or implied which would mean it would be the reserved powers for the states to act upon. However, the article did say that under the federal law (CSA) it is a federal crime to possess, distribute or manufacture marijuana which would mean all states should follow the law and any violations should be punished. And because of the CSA it should preempt Colorado’s law however, they basically just threw out whatever the CSA said and pulled a fast one (10th amendment) which is why it is also understandable for the other states that do want to follow the law to complain about Colorado and it is understandable for Colorado to do their own thing. Maybe it is the government’s fault for not reinforcing it? But then why make a federal law for only “some” states to follow? Or just get rid of the law because no one is going to follow it because the federal government shouldn’t have been able to intervene with the regulation of drugs in the first place.
ReplyDeleteAmanda Lor
Period 5
Just as human action might be affecting global climate and hastening the melting of arctic ice, the people (through direct democracy at the state level) are slowly pushing back against an arguably outdated national policy against marijuana. And yes, the federal government is waffling right now on whether they want to enforce their own law. Let's see what a Trump administration does about this.
DeleteI’m confused on what basis the CSA is set upon if the Constitution does not have an enumerated power for Congress to regulate drugs within states. Nor do I see where this federal act is an implied power that helps carry out an enumerated law. This article confused me because it argued that Colorado was in the wrong for passing a law that so clearly was illegal to pass under the CSA due to the supremacy clause that the federal government always beats state government. However, the article fails to mention the 10th Amendment and reserved powers. The Constitution does not explicitly or implicitly give the national government the right to regulate drugs; therefore, it is up to state legislatures whether or not they want to legalize marijuana.
ReplyDelete-Viviana Nunez
P.5
Yes, technically Colorado is in wrong but there is nothing in the 10th amendment that says the national government has power over regulation of drugs. I see how Congress was able to make it's case that it was an implied power because they are able to regulate activities that have an effect on commerce, but I just don't think that argument is strong enough. I think the national government was infringing on the state's powers by passing the CSA. The supremacy clause states that the national government always wins however they don't seem to be doing anything to stop Colorado. I think the national government doesn't really have a problem with Colorado legalizing marijuana so they see no point in taking action. Ultimately I don't think states ignoring the CSA and legalizing marijuana will cause bigger problems in the future since if it's something our national government really has an interest in they would use the supremacy clause to shut it all down.
ReplyDeleteRebecca Platero P.2
The main idea of the article is to demonstrate the specific scenarios in which the national and state governments clash. Due to the existence of Amendment 10, which explicitly states the "implied" powers granted to the state, Colorado probably believed that their actions were justified in the name of the Constitution. However, from my understanding of the reading, the clear resolution to the conflict with federal and state is that "federal law wins." In a sense, I do understand why that is the case in this scenario, because Colorado violated the set terms of the CSA, a body appointed by Congress themselves. It appears that states are able to test their limits when it comes to creating constitutional laws, which could result in possibly more disputes such as this with the federal government.
ReplyDelete(Charlize Villamin-De Leon, Period 2)
The national government holds certain enumerated powers; however, nowhere (in the 10th amendment) does it say that they possess the power to ban marijuana (or regulate drugs at all). The legal state of marijuana thereore falls into the hands of individual states. Therefore, the fact that Colorado voted to make marijuana legal is playing by the rules. At this point the intrusion of the federal government seems out of place, seeing as how there is no rules specifying how or if the national government is allowed to regulate drugs. The article also fails to even mention the 10th amendment, so the role of the CSA in a case like Colorado's is questionable indeed.
ReplyDelete-Andrés Garcia
period 5
DeleteI believe that Colorado's law is not legal by the supremacy clause. However, the CSA should only be able to regulate interstate commerce because that is all congress is given the power to regulate. As long as the marijuana remains inside Colorado it should be legal because it does not seem that congress’s implied powers go as far as to regulate the commerce within a state. Anything relating to the national government such as dealers filing for federal taxes or trying to sell their product in another sate would be illegal by the CSA and supremacy clause but anything remaining in Colorado would be legal by because congress doesn’t have the power to regulate intrastate commerce.
ReplyDeleteKyle Wurtz
P.5
Colorado seems to be pretty bold to directly defy the CSA, and while I don't think they are necessarily wrong for doing it, it is technically illegal. As stated in the supremacy clause, when the federal government goes against the states, the states lose. Colorado is trying to make the argument that the CSA has no connection to any enumerated right or implied power, and I can't disagree. The only possible explanation I can see for marijuana and other drugs being banned federally would be if they tried to say that it was an implied power since it could make people become distracted from their duties to provide for the country, therefore not providing for the general welfare of the country. But that's a stretch, and a big one at that. Maybe going against the national government is what the states need to gain what they think is their right back.
ReplyDeleteRyan Cain Per. 3
States have the right to create laws and policies so long as that power is not given to the national government. In this case, nowhere in the Constitution does it state that it can ban, or even legalize, marijuana. Such an act would’ve been left to the states however, the national government took an extra step and decided to use a power that the Constitution does not grant them. In conclusion, Colorado is not at fault for legalizing pot, it’s the national government who stepped out of line and violated the meaning of state’s rights.
ReplyDeleteJob Kimani
P.5
Based on the article alone, one might be led to believe, as I initially was, that Colorado was in the wrong with its legalization of marijuana. The author of the article argues that in doing so, Colorado violates the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which according to the supremacy clause in the U.S. Constitution, preempts Colorado's marijuana law. Despite this argument, one may counter that the 10th Amendment of the Constitution can be used as support for Colorado's law: any powers not given to the federal government by the Constitution, or prohibited by it to the states, are state powers. In this way, since Congress/federal government was not explicitly given the power to prohibit/allow substances such as marijuana, the states can do so. This is an instance in which two aspects of the Constitution are in direct conflict with each other. Does the supremacy clause hold jurisdiction over the 10th amendment, or vice versa? If the former statement were true, this means that ultimately, federal law reigns supreme over state law, despite the fact that by the structure U.S. federalism, neither the national nor state governments have complete jurisdiction over the other. In short, in considering both arguments, to me there is no clear or obvious answer as to whether or not Colorado was in the wrong in legalizing marijuana.
ReplyDelete-Gianna Apoderado P.5
Excellent post and reasoning. Even though our federal system of government gives sovereignty to both levels of government, only one level can TRULY be supreme, and that is the national. The Constitution did not create a confederacy; otherwise, states would be supreme. It took states decades to come to terms with this, and in the case of the South, it never fully accepted this reality which is why they seceded from the Union!
DeleteThis law is very controversial, but what I find interesting/confusing is the fact that the Supremacy Clause states that Federal law always overrules State law, but according to the 10th amendment anything not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution is left to the states. By legalizing marijuana Colorado is sticking up to the federal government by ignoring the CSA, whether it is intentional or not is up to the state's lawmakers. Personally, I think that the CSA, if anything, is not the most constitutional because drugs and how to deal with them is never explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. It is honestly really easy to see both sides of this argument, because on one hand, marijuana is not an enumerated topic, so it could be left to the states decide, but on the other hand, the CSA is a federal law and should technically be observed no matter what the state approves.
ReplyDeleteAlysa Quijada p.2
Although I believe the CSA to be a violation to civil liberties and outdated, I can see how the national government could have connected it to the regulation of commerce thus making it an implied power. The CSA, deemed constitutional as an implied power, is federal law that should be followed by the states. Colorado's pot law is illegal under the CSA and as the article says could set an alarming precedent for other states to ignore more reasonable federal laws. For the federal government to not use supremacy clause and take action against Colorado's law shows a government that is complacent, leading to more states passing pot laws like Colorado and further disregard for the CSA. The states can not act if the power is already given to national government excluding the exceptions: shared powers. However, in the debate to legalize marijuana there is no room for the power to be shared.
ReplyDelete-Samira Torna
P.3
According to the 10th Amendment, the National government has no direct say in the matter of the states if the situation is not in the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution is there an enumerated power saying anything about a ban on drugs, in this case marijuana. I believe that Colorado is in the wrong with this one and Nebraska and Oklahoma are in the right. Colorado's legalization of marijuana is clearly interfering or contradicting with the National governments CSA law and in this case they should of never passed this law.
ReplyDeleteClay Reyes per.2
CSA is a federal law that was passed by Congress intended to be followed by every state, and the Supremacy Clause should cancel out any disagreement w=between the government and states. If Colorado doesn’t follow this law, what’s to say that other states won’t join the party? On the other hand however, what happened to the 10th amendment, and to checks and balances, did it just get up and leave? Its no secret that other states have legalized marijuana (why were these states allowed to keep weed? It doesn’t seem that Congress is enforcing the CSA law very well if other states can go about legalizing marijuana), so why is it that the differing beliefs don’t balance each other out in Congress? Wasn’t that the point of having a republic so we wouldn’t have a majority rule, and to have a Separation of Powers between the legislative and the federal government? How is it that there can be the Supremacy Clause and the 10th amendment, and not have any conflict between the two? If “drug rights” were never enumerated in the constitution, that should give each individual state the power to decide whether or not marijuana is illegal. It seems that the 10th amendment only applies when the federal government decides to not intervene. Both sides are hazy and the Constitution is contradicting itself, I'm at a stalemate.
ReplyDeleteErick Martinez p.3
This article demonstrates the unforeseen issues with clashes between the national and state government. The Constitution does not mention the regulation of drugs so any decision with this matter are handed over to the states. The interesting thing is that the national government tried to say drug laws are implied in their power. Maybe this is because they fear that States have too much power.
ReplyDeleteMaya Domozetska
P.3
This is why Federalists and antifederalist are arguing with each other because one wants states to rule by themselves instead of the others, federalists, wanting the government to control the states.
ReplyDeleteEthan Aurangzeb per. 2
In my opinion this whole thing should be settled by the two states. This type of scenario is not enumerated into the constitution so there is no reason for the national government to get involved. The states are just using there 10th amendment (reserved powers) in order to enforce what they believe is right to govern their states to the extent of what they believe is best for them. I don't like how the article makes it seem as if Colorado is able to succeed at their goal then the whole united states will go into chaos as if there is no limit if they become successful.
ReplyDeleteStates like Colorado have the right to legalize drugs like marijuana if they please because the power to do so is not given to the national government. The national government does not have power to ban it since there is nothing in the Constitution about drugs. I also do not see a connection that the national government can make about the banning marijuana being a necessary act to carry out an enumerated power. Because of the 10th amendment, this topic seems like a state activity that is beyond the federal government's reach. It is a reserved power that state governments should be allowed to decide on how they want to go about the matter.
ReplyDelete-Tiffany Inouye P.3
Colorado has every right to go against the fed and the CSA due to the fact that the federal government can't really ban the use of marijuana. No where in the Constitution shows that the fed have that right to ban drugs, and by banning this drug, it doesn't help them pull of any enumerated powers so they shouldn't be able to ban it. It's only fair that Colorado gets to ignore this policy because if the fed isn't allowed to make this law, according to the Constitution, then Colorado should have the right to not comply. I guess it says that the Federal Law will win against the State, but the fact that the Feds don't have that kind of power, isn't fair.
ReplyDelete- Justin Andal Per. 3
Based on my initial impressions from the article, the issue seems clear cut: the Controlled Substances Act has judicial supremacy. But after reading some of the comments, I do realize that nowhere in the Constitution is the regulation of the sale of controlled substances or any closely related transactions enumerated or even implied as a congressional power. However, worth nothing is that the United States has set precedent already when it comes to regulating substances, mainly nicotine and alcohol. At this stage, regulation of drugs exists due to its intended objective of securing the public safety and its de facto status as a power of Congress. Any argument that opposes the CSA has almost constitutional and usurping the powers of states to regulate on such matters does need to recognize and present a compelling argument against the mountain of precedent already established. Furthermore, the post-1936 general welfare clause does give partial legal basis behind regulating marijuana.
ReplyDeleteArthur Kim, period 5
After the first read, my immediate thought was that Colorado was in the wrong. With the supremacy clause making the federal law the law of the land, one would think Colorado is violating federal law. After further analysis, I was able to come up with a new perspective. Contrary to the supremacy clause, the 10th amendment states that any powers not given to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the states as long as they don't violate the Constitution. Since the Constitution doesn't directly prohibit marijuana, this power should be up the states. This is just another example of the ongoing conflict between the powers of the federal and state governments.In this case, the topic should be out of the government's hands and the decision should be left up to the states.
ReplyDeleteMatthew Johnson P.2
Upon reading this article, I immediately saw a clear contradiction. According to the constitution, the federal government cannot pass a law unless it is ENUMERATED. Any matter that is not enumerated, falls into the hands of the state to legalize. Nowhere in the constitution is there an enumerated power that allows the ban of drugs. Due to this matter not being enumerated by the constitution, the federal government does not have a say in whether any state may legalize marijuana or not. Furthermore, the establishment of the federal Controlled Substances Act, in a way, is unconstitutional in itself. It is not mentioned in the constitution and therefore, may not be a federal law. Therefore, in this matter, the supremacy clause cannot come into play; legalizing marijuana is in the hands of each state.
ReplyDeleteTariq Nugud, period 3
The Constitution of the United States does not state anything about the national government having any power over handling drugs like marijuana. Following that, the 10th amendment states that the national government only holds power that the Constitution states it has and the implied powers that are necessary to carry out those enumerated powers. So since regulating drugs is neither an implied power or an enumerated power, then the states have the power to whether or not marijuana should be legal.
ReplyDeleteBut according to the supremacy clause, where the federal law always win over state law, marijuana shouldn't be legalized. And with Colorado violating the CSA, it brings up the question of whether federal law overrides state power or not.
Giuseppi Pelayo, period 2
Wow you guys are kicking some serious arse. I have never responded this much to so many students on the first blog. I am impressed! Keep it up (I'm going to bed). We'll talk more tomorrow. I'm pumped to see so many of you asking such great questions and truly wrestling with this issue. It's an honor to be your government teacher this semester!
ReplyDeleteWe <3 you Cav #makeamericagreatagain
Delete-Mark, Viktoria, and Britney
I do not believe that Colorado has the right to defy the CSA. The way I see it is that the federal government used its implied powers to create this law and technically that is legal for them to do so. In addition to that we have a system of checks and balances and according to the supreme court, whose job is to make sure laws are constitutional, congress's CSA law does not violate the constitution in any way. The article also mentions the flow of marijuana through other state borders making this case an interstate commerce meaning that it falls under the federal government's sphere of power.
ReplyDeleteChristopher Tong Per. 5
With the limitation of authority held against the national government, established by the constitution, the central government contains no power or ability to manipulate the rule over drug distribution in state governments. The nationals rule against the legalization of drugs in Colorado evades the principles and power of the constitution. Thus, in contradiction the federal CSA prevents the reserved power to implicate the law. The CSA, passed by congress to regulate and distribute drugs among the people, stated that any who violates by manufacturing and distributing marijuana are considered and convicted of a federal crime. If the implied power is being enforced by the federal government which is unprecedented, wouldn’t both enumerated and reserved powers be contradicting the constitution?
ReplyDeleteSabrina Amador P.2
Though I do understand Nebraska and Oklahoma's side in this case, I do believe that Colorado is not completely at fault here. Yes, their is flaws with their marijuana laws as it does violate the CSA in which marijuana is classified as a Schedule I drug, meaning it cannot be distributed, manufactured, or owned. Due to the constitution not explicitly stating regualtions or rules about drugs, more specifically, marijuana, and their legality, Colorado is simply exercising their 10th amendment rights as a state.It is not enumerated in the constitution that Colorado is by any means, doing anything illegal but, as i stated before, they are going against the rules of the CSA. In conclusion, I do not feel entirely right siding with either as I do see both sides to this case.
ReplyDeleteLitzulli Figueroa per. 5
I too agree with Samira on the current standing of the CSA especially on the topic of marijuana. However, before getting into the technicalities of this one act, let’s look at the dynamics of any state or regional government, they exist to evaluate the happenings WITHIN the state, including any profitable industry. This includes the industry of marijuana because if it is profitable and provides both work and income for the individuals of that state, then why does the national government feel the need to involve itself with an overarching act, not even explicitly listed in the Constitution. This also brings me to my next point, if the fed does feel the need to have further control over “potentially dangerous” substances being manufactured and distributing, then it has every power to enumerate another power. However, we all know the possibility to do so would be incredibly difficult, and this is because of the mere process where representatives of STATES would speak on the issue, pointing out the far too stretched implicit powers of the national government. Personally I believe that to quickly run to a constitution built 200+ years ago, which merely is a framework to our government, is unproductive in itself. Deliberation and action on a modern viewpoint is necessary.
ReplyDeleteRebecca Covarrubias
period 5
According to the 10th amendment, power not given to the federal government is given to the state. It does not state that the federal government has the power to ban or legalize marijuana. Therefore, I believe California was not in the wrong and this is an issue that should be resolved by the states.
ReplyDeleteJessica Lee p.2
The problem I see with this article is that the author put too much faith in the Congress's implied powers, when implied powers are known to evolve as the times change- for example, the CSA was created in response to the heavy surge of hallucinogenic and harmful drug use in the 1960’s, to protect the people. Furthermore, Lynch stated to follow the law and only the law, not personal preference, yet the “law” (in this case, the CSA) seems to have been twisted and conformed in its case for the sake of its passing. The stem of this fight seems to have come from ethics and morality in a time of turmoil- twisting the words of the Constitution made it right for the national government to pass. If otherwise, the states would have had their way with how they wanted to handle this issue among other things, such as education, transportation, and in this case, drugs, which all ultimately fall into the hands of the states because nowhere in the Constitution does it say that those matters fall under federal authority. And yet, the government itself, had the largest say.
ReplyDelete-Francesca Vista, pd 5
Upon initially reading this article the conclusion of the matter seemed to be quite simple; by decree of the supremacy clause if a conflict were to arise between state and federal law federal law would ultimately trump state law in all instances. In essence, this conclusion should have marked the end of my viewpoint on the matter, however the matter seemed to be a little too clearcut, therefore I proceeded to read the article once more and in correlation with some of the other comments I realized something. Regardless of the framer's intention with the supremacy rule, it still stands true that, through the 10 amendment, if the power is not enumerated or implied to the national gov. and the power is not prohibited to the specific state by their constitution, then there should be no reason for the federal government to reign victorious over this debate of marijuana and how Colorado implements it.
ReplyDeleteKenechi Ikeanyi, P. 2
The 10th Amendment states that the national government possesses the powers stated in the Constitution, all other powers are given to the states. By passing the marijuana law, Colorado thought they were fine because there was nothing stated in the constitution about marijuana being illegal, allowing them to make their own decision. However, according to the article, "Under the supremacy clause of the Constitution, when federal and state law clash, federal law wins.” This explains that Colorado is wrong for disregarding the rules of the CSA. By going against the CSA, Colorado is setting a bad example for other states, which could cause more problems and disputes later on.
ReplyDeleteJuliann Salinas, Period 2
After reading the article, I see that the National Government does not state whether marijuana should be legalized or not. In fact, I see that this plays a huge role as one of the reasons why the 10th Amendment has such a huge impact. The 10th Amendment gives power to the states by allowing the states to take action over any situation when left for the states themselves, especially when regarding whether its Constitutional or not. This guides me into understanding that the legalization of marijuana is entirely up to the states. Marijuana is and should be up to the state legislatures. Even though the "...Federal law wins", states should be able too make some of their own decisions themselves.
ReplyDeleteGreg Pullon
Period 5
I believe that Colorado has the power to make it's own laws as long as it is not a power prohibited to the states or given to the national government. Federalism allows the states and the national government to have split powers. Looking at the Constitution, the power to control the use of drugs by the national government is not explicitly stated. The Constitution does not give the national government enumerated or implied powers on this matter. Granted under the 10th Amendment, Colorado used it's power as a state to create laws.
ReplyDeleteSaketh Sadhu
Period 3
The article makes a good argument that the government's laws preempt those of states under the constitution, which will always be true in the case of the powers of the government (implied or enumerated) being constitutional. The problem is that it assumes that states should not try to push their rights making sure that any implied power is constitutional. This is something I believe the framers wanted, it is not enough to assume that whatever the government establishes preempts a state’s laws. This would cause more of a unitary government were the government has a last say in everything. In the case of marijuana legalization in states like Colorado being unconstitutional based off The CSA (Controlled Substance Act), then the national government should push this in court. However the reason the government doesn't, I believe, is probably because in court the CSA probably won't hold up as constitutional. If the government refuses to check its constitutional powers in court from time to time, then a "supremacy clause" is hardly anything more than symbolic. The framers were smart in their division of power. Cases like this not only allow States to check the national government and prevent the government from creating laws with ridiculous justification from the constitution, but it also allows the government to "flex" its powers in a sense and provide indefinite reasoning (based on the constitutional: a set of nation-wide "rules") for why a law is in place.
ReplyDeleteWell-argued! You brought up a good point about how states can check national power as Madison so eloquently argued in Federalist 51.
DeleteThe CSA isn't necessarily constitutional. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the national government has the power to control substances amongst the states. You could possibly take a stretch and say that it's an implied power, but there is no direct tie from the CSA to any enumerated powers given to the national government.
ReplyDeleteSo, in this specific case, I believe that Colorado is attempting to use it's constitutional power by passing the marijuana law. This power has not been given to the national government by the Constitution, and it also has not been prohibited to the states by the Constitution. Therefore, Colorado holds this constitutional power.
Sitembile Sukuta (P. 5)
According to the supremacy clause, Colorado should be held accountable for going against the say of the National government. As stated in the article who knows that could happen next if Colorado is not punished for going against the CSA. However, I could see where Colorado has an argument. No where in the Constitution does it say or even imply that Congress has control over drugs in the states, meaning that the state should have say on whether or not marijuana is legal. It seems like a very sticky situation
ReplyDeleteHunter Schoeller p.2
I agree that Colorado did have the right to legalize marijuana in the sense that the Constitution did not enumerate the use of marijuana, and according to the 10th amendment any power that is not given to the federal government is given to the people or the states (which is why the legalized marijuana). However the CSA, which is under the federal government, uses the supremacy clause to override Colorado on it’s legalization of marijuana. It even states in the article that “when federal and state law clash, federal law wins”. So I assume that Colorado legalizing marijuana is unconstitutional since it did go against the CSA, which clearly stated that “ It is therefore a federal crime to possess, distribute or manufacture marijuana”. I'm still confused on some parts of the topic but I hope to learn more in class in order to decide my opinion on who over powers who.
ReplyDeleteJosette Yasay Period 2
Initially I was confused at which side was actually right. I wrestled with the fact that the if the CSA bans this use of drugs then how is Colorado still able to carry this type of thing through. I also then re read the article as well as some comments and realized the the Constitution has no say against such law. as wrong as it sounds to go against the CSA on paper, essentially they are doing nothing wrong because it is not directly stated in the Constitution that you can prohibit such use. however in situations like these, the government will always come out right no matter how or who comes at them, which makes no sense because if the power isn't being acted on in the federal government then it is clearly the states free choice which shouldn't be a case handled by the government because no matter what they will win.
ReplyDeleteEthan Cisneros
Period 5
This article shed light on the "sibling" type relationship that our states have. One sibling is doing something different and the others don't like it/how it is making their life harder, so they tattle to mom/dad(federal gov't) to see if they can try and make it go away.I believe that Colorado is practicing their Constitutional rights (10th Amendment) and it was not enumerated that marijuana is forbidden. Where I see the wires getting jumbled is the debate of whether the federal gov't should get involved. I believe that they should just leave it to the states and impose stricter marijuana laws in the affected states to discourage the rule breakers from committing crimes.By having specific enumerated laws it can possibly mitigate the conflict(s) similar to this in the long run.
ReplyDelete- Chloe' Kasozi p.5
Upon reading this article my instant impression is that Colorado was wrong in defying the CSA and the national government has jurisdiction over this issue because of the commerce clause. Marijuana is incredibly hard to maintain within a state's borders, and it is common sense that drug dealers are not going to stay confined within their state to make a profit, therefore this is now a national issue. The constitution obviously will not explicitly list the rights of the national government with "Marijuana" or "drugs", but the constitution does provide implied powers to the national government to execute their enumerated powers, one of which being the commerce clause. The distribution of marijuana across state borders would bring along a plethora of effects on interstate commerce. Whether these effects are good or bad is another debate, but it should be up to the national government to decide the legality of marijuana in our country.
ReplyDeleteSharen Moniqca, period 2
Excellent post! You did a nice job of explaining why, in fact, the national government has the power to ban marijuana under the Commerce Clause.
DeleteThe 10th amendment states that "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". Therefore, upon reading this article I was puzzled as to how federal law always wins in cases against state laws. However, I can see how the CSA may have been able to win this case, if they had referred to Congress' express power to regulate commerce. But in conclusion, I believe that Colorado had the right to legalize pot because nowhere in the Constitution does it implicitly state a ban on pot.
ReplyDeleteChristopher Jordan, P.3
I believe that constitutionally Colorado had the the right to legalize marijuana in their state. The conflict comes from the national government abusing its implied powers to pass the CSA. In doing so the national government completely steps on the 10th amendment and states rights. While the supremacy clause does state that the national government should win in this case, I think this should be overlooked considering the original passing of the CSA seems unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteSeth Casas, P. 5
When first reading the article I thought Colorado was in the wrong because the supremacy clause states that if federal and state's laws clash then federal wins. After reading the tenth amendment my views changed because it doesn't allow the federal government to have control over a states law unless it is in the constitution. I believe this matter should be left up to the state of Colorado due to the tenth amendment because it does not say anything in the constitution about drugs. Overall it felt like all of these things contradicted each other and that there is no easy way of stating who is wrong or right.
ReplyDelete-Kaleigh McCloskey, Period:2
Both sides have a good argument to defending their points, according to the 10th amendment if the power is not enumerated in the constitution then congress could not enact on it, and nowhere in the constitution does it say congress can ban drugs but the opposing side has a point when it says if the state clashes with the federal government then the federal gov should win and if this is being challenged then we have a problem if the states can oppose the federal gov if they don't like it. I feel that If marijuana like any drug can spread its demand and if it goes to another state then the federal gov. can intervene because it is interstate commerce .
ReplyDeleteGuillermo Quezada, P:5
I understand the concerns of Colorado's bold move to go against the CSA and I can imagine that most mindsets would go into a slippery slope pattern of what states can do next. However, the enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act was never justified as constitutional. It's clearly not stated in the constitution that the federal government has control over regulation of drugs, substances, etc. which keeps Colorado's decision difficult to combat. The commerce clause, however, plays a role supporting the federal law, saying that Congress has the enumerated power to regulate commerce among states. I feel that both sides, Colorado and the federal government, have legitimate support to their position on marijuana.
ReplyDeleteLindsay Gonzalez Period 2
I believe that because it is not stated explicitly in the Constitution, Colorado has the right to pass the law on legalizing marijuanna within its state. They are simply carrying out their rights given to them in the 10th Amendment, "The powers..are reserved to the States...". By passing this law they felt that because there was nothing mentioned in the Constitution, they were not going against it. However, even though they felt they were not going against the Constitution, they were disobeying the federal law passed by the CSA that distributing, manufacturing and possessing marijuanna is illegal. I do feel that the supremacy law is unfair, with the idea that the federal always wins and has power to intervene when they feel anything is unconstitutional. When it comes to matters of the states and their own laws, the states should have the power to enact any law (that doesn't contravene the Constitution, of course) how ever and how often they please.
ReplyDeleteJurnee Joseph p. 2
I agree with the argument the author makes in the article. Our government system, though supportive of states' rights and dividing power between the states and central government, holds the central federal government as the supreme power when it comes between the two. This makes the laws passed by the federal government the law of the land. Any contradiction or disobedience to this law is considered a crime and unconstitutional, which is the case in Colorado's decision to legalize marijuana in spite of the CSA being in effect. Whether the CSA is good policy or not is another debate, but the fact that it must be upheld by each state as deemed by the constitution is unquestionable.
ReplyDeleteEmmanuel Mintah, P.3
The Constitution is used to state the National Government's limitations/power, whether enumerated or implied. Any remaining power is given to the states, with the same expectations of knowing what is allowed. If the state of Colorado wishes to legalize marijuana then it has the right to do so. Why? Because nowhere in our constitution does is state or have a need to imply that the National Govt. can prohibit the manufacture and/or distribution of marijuana. Yes, I understand that the National Govt. deemed marijuana a supposedly "potentially dangerous" substance (stated in the CSA), they fail to realize that many people use this enterprise as their only source of income. Furthermore, though there may be many other ways to come up with some cash, the CSA is completely unnecessary and contradictory for the reason that it overshadows the reserved powers' right to execute their own policies. Colorado was simply exercisizing their 10th Amendment rights, giving any power that was not previous given to the National Govt. to the states.
ReplyDelete-Dorian Cardoza, Per. 5
I do believe that Colorado has the right to decide to legalize marijuana. The 2 opposing states can claim that the legalization is effecting them but at the end of the day, the issue of marijuana is not explicitly stated in the constitution, leaving it up to the states to decide. In contrast, Colorado going against the CSA, which was set forth by the federal government, might set a bad example for other states and decisions in the future. In the 10th amendment it clearly states that rights that are not enumerated are left up to state legislatures to decide but if there is a conflict with the federal government, then they take precedence over the states.
ReplyDeleteAdrianna Sandoval (Period 3)
At first glance, I didn't really know who to side with, but after reading some of these comments and the article (again), it's obvious that Colorado has the right to pass these sort of laws. For one, CSA isn't necessarily "constitutional" and 2nd of all Colorado is only exercising its 10th amendment.
ReplyDeleteArturo Escamilla p. 5
The federal policy controlled substance act was proposed by congress and was viewed as constitutional by the Supreme court therefore making it a federal offense that certain states ignore this law. The constitution however never explicitly states its ability to regulate narcotics in states thought to be sovereign in creating their own criminal codes.
ReplyDeleteFederal supremacy would deem certain policies as unavoidable due to them being constitutional by the supreme court. However the framers would have believed that either the states have full power over their territories penal code, or that narcotics would damage productivity of the citizens leading to a broken national commerce that would falter the national government from being able to govern the people properly.
Enrique Menjivar
P.3
As the article explicitly states "federal law wins" in any circumstance, Colorado has chosen to disregard the CSA (which is regulated by the national government) and test the limits to the power a states' government holds, in this case legalizing marijuana. Although the 2 other states have noticed this unlawful act against a state and the federal government, the federal government has not taken action to exercise its enumerated power to take charge towards uncooperative states. Could it be that the federal government does not have a direct action because there is a contradiction which ties in with the 10th amendment (which give states the power to decide on subjects that the constitution does not enumerate, such as drugs) and the supremacy clause? Frankly, I believe Colorado was in the wrong to legitimize marijuana because just as the article emphasizes the federal government has the ultimate ruling in order to reduce chaos and turmoil from other states.
ReplyDeleteMikayla Teves P.5
It's so easily evidenced that there will never be a clear line in federalism (and for good reason; it's difficult to find a definitive right or wrong in this.)
ReplyDeleteColorado was wrong to disregard federal inter-commercial law and the federal government as well as Nebraska and Oklahoma do have the right to accuse Colorado of this-- as the regulations stated in the CSA are not only superior and federal law but were also passed by all three branches of government (including Congress in representation of their respective states)-- but the main significance lies in the pre and post processes of Colorado's actions.
Under what statutes is the creation of the CSA considered constitutionally rightful? And under what standing does Colorado feel compelled to defy such statutes? Why hasn't the national government acted upon this defiance and why aren't they taking any action against allowing this same legislation to appear on other states' ballots?
We are a united nation under one supreme government, so I understand that federal law will overrule state law but it seems as if the federal government has failed to fully understand its own identity and its own roles and has a messy way of creating acts that relent power only to create more acts to cover up said weak points... so of course states would feel equally confused and compelled to make such decisions without federal consent. However, it still feels like a wild goose chase to reach any clear and rightful conclusion...
Sharon Park, p.3
Many are making the claim that because the National Government did not enumerate the power to regulate drugs' legality, therefore the states hold the power to decide the legality of marijuana according to the 10th amendment. However, the national government did pass the Controlled Substances Act, which makes marijuana use and sales illegal in all 50 states. Furthermore, due to the supremacy clause, the national government wins in all cases of disagreement between national and state governments. Therefore, it was unconstitutional for Colorado to legalize marijuana, and the federal government could prevent this from happening if it deemed that doing so was worth whatever amount of money necessary to enforce this. However, because it is unpopular and expensive to enforce, the national government ignores this illegality. I predict that in the near future Congress will propose an amendment to make marijuana legal.
ReplyDelete-Madeline Casolari
P. 3
Colorado should be punished by the national government for disregarding the CSA. Unless the marijuana regulations are removed the states must follow the laws set in place. The states however, should challenge whether the federal government has the right to regulate taxes.
ReplyDeleteNicolas Goodling P.2
After reading through some of my peers' comments, I noticed that some people said that their opinions changed on the article upon reading more than once, however, this was not the case for me. Even despite reading through the article in its entirety a couple times, I still feel as if Colorado was wrong for legalizing marijuana. My reason for thinking this is because according to the CSA, any possession, manufacturing or distribution of marijuana is illegal and is a federal offense. Since this act has already been passed, by allowing it's residents to possess the drug, Colorado is directly overriding Congress. Although the argument can be made that Congress does not have the ability to make such a decision at a national level due to it not being enumerated, I still feel that Colorado, along with other states that have legalized marijuana, should not have done so since the act has already been passed. It feels strange that these states are all, in a sense, committing a federal crime and I can understand that using the argument that this is one of Congress's implied powers is a bit of a reach but I still feel that state level governments should not be able to override or nullify national decisions. However, this is a statement that is very tricky since each situation is different and each state and its residents all have different perspectives and needs.
ReplyDelete:)
DeleteThe legalization of marijuana in Colorado is a prime example of the state’s reserved power to label marijuana dealers as entrepreneurs instead of criminals. Yes, this violates the CSA because the possession and manufacturing of marijuana is treated as a federal crime, yet you might ask yourself, if this is illegal then how was this law passed? Well in my opinion it shouldn't have been passed. According to the supremacy clause of the Constitution, “if a state law interferes with congressional policies and objectives, it cannot stand” meaning that if the national deems this law unfit it can revoke/discard it. Until the national deems this law unfit, people will continue to comfortably and legally smoke and sell marijuana in Colorado.
ReplyDeleteAdriana Ortiz
Period 5
I think that a contradictory system was intentionally created by our founding fathers in order to limit a majority between that national and state governments. Such is exemplified by the fact that the national government was given broad, vague enumerated powers that implied a never ending stream of other powers while that state governments, although limited to some extent, were given free, undefinable reserved powers. However, in cases like these, where a clash occurs, it is evident that the national power, regardless of how thinly it has spread its reaches to cover and manage policy on certain topics that it might not be allowed too, is valued more than the state power. Is this a good thing? I believe that when it comes to certain issues, states should have the upper hand for they are more aware and educated on the unique, individual circumstances of their state and would therefore be more likely to create positive, successful change. However I also believe that the national government should be able to limit this power to a certain extent from a moral and inclusive platform that looks at the big picture rather than the details. Therefore I call for a new, more flexible system to be created that includes the points given above in order to bring about better, fairer, and more logical compromises between the two power circles.
ReplyDeleteKaitlyn Ortiz P. 5
:)
DeleteI find it strange how the Federal Government does have a say in the issue of marijuana, since nowhere does it say in the constitution that that people are allowed to use marijuana and according to the 10th amendment issues like this should go to the states rather that the federal government. On the other hand, I think that since the CSA exists they have a right to conflict with Colorado's law on marijuana, since Colorado is breaking federal law.
ReplyDeleteAndy Garcia P.2
Colorado, among other states, passing state laws contradictory to the will of the federal government is very threatening to the usual structure of our republic. While the law may be struck down in court soon, this will not stop the rising tide of opinion as both sides of the aisle are looking to decriminalize or pass legislation to regulate marijuana. A Supreme Court ruling would be the proper move for proponents of the constitution and proper governance, even at the cost of a complex and successful regulation apparatus currently set up in colorado, since colorado is infringing upon constitutional law
ReplyDeleteJulian Gutierrez P.2
It says specifically in the article that federal law overcomes state law so any reader would think that this debate, between allowing marijuana to be dispensed legally or not, is supported by an enumerated law. Also under the rules of the CSA, marijuana is classified as a schedule 1 drug which means if someone buys or sells drugs it is considered a federal crime. Since this law is enumerated the state should be held accountable for breaking it however, Colorado has the right to defend their side and say that the 10th amendment gives them the right to legalize marijuana since this right isn't given to the federal government.
ReplyDeleteKayla Scarberry p. 2
Yes, I believe that Colorado was very wrong to legalize marijuana. Colorado did not make a mistake by doing this, they knew the law against it and still went on to legalize it. I also believe the move to legalize the substance is disrespectful to Federal Law as this action said to us that Colorado State legislators thing they are "above" that law. As stated in the article, If Colorado took it upon themselves to legalize marijuana without punishment, then it just opens the gate for other states to not only do the same, but other acts that may be harmful to the people. The fact that the marijuana dispensaries are violating the CSA with no repercussions says a lot about our government structure, as stated in the article. This is a very serious issue that must be resolved quickly, as it could go past legalizing marijuana to other serious matters.
ReplyDeleteJoseph Mikhail p.2
I think that the federal government shouldn't have gotten involved with this problem because it shouldn't have been a problem in the first place. Colorado went against the CSA, going against Congress directly. Even though it might not have been one of their enumerated powers it was an act passed and ratified therefore should be followed. However,I'm a bit confused about the supremacy clause. I though that the state and and national government were suppose to check each other's power but how come when it come to things like these the federal always wins?
ReplyDeletePatricia Molinos p.5
DeleteAlthough the National Government doesn't have the enumerated power to ban marijuana, they did pass the Controlled Substance Act as an implied power in which I believe interferred with their ability to conduct commece etc. With that being said Colorado's move to legalize marijuana, to much people's denial was unconstitutional. Considering that the National Government should use their power over the states explicitly stated in the constitution to take Nebraska and Oklahoma's side and impose on Colorado however that doesn't mean that they will considering they have to fear the economic effect of banning such an industry, restricting of states' right, also continue on streak to stop other states following Colorado's lead.
ReplyDeleteJesse Nkemere p.3
Though the states do have significant power over their own choices within their states' borders, it is clearly labeled that federal law will always beat out state law if they come to a clash. With the CSA in place, I find it odd that the side of Colorado would even stand a chance. Their actions are in dirct violation to a well argued implied power of the national government. Now with California taking th sam lead, who is to say others won't continue down what could be a very slippery slope, of stats doing whatever they think is corrct, disrgarding the constitution and national govrnmnt, and damaging the precious unity that holds the nation.
ReplyDelete-Hunter Mittelstaedt
-Period 3
In the 10th amendment, issues such as this is to be between the states and not the federal law. Yes, it was a bit of a slap in the face to congress and the federal law BECAUSE it was a law having been ratified and passed, BUT the feds should have not, in my opinion, gotten involved due to the states legal rights. Unfortunately for colorado, "federal law always wins" in any case, and it is understandable that the other two states are taking it to court seeing as it interferes w their borders and laws, but i'm pretty sure federal law already knew about colorados legalizing of marijuana, yet they still chose not to exercise their rights.... as i continued to read on, the article mentioned more about how if we don't need to listen to a federal law then why have one ? as well as asking the nicely rhetorical question about how if different states would start ignoring other federal laws.. my question being: why wasn't this as big of a deal between the states and federal law when neighboring states decided to outlaw abortion. If the national law didn't originally have a problem with this, they should not have become involved period .
ReplyDeleteNicole Figueroa Leon P.2 (absent)
The federal government, I believe, is not a body of "police officers," meaning it is not the government's job to become involved in or to correct every problem they see. It is also not the government's job to deem situations as "problematic," but "unconstitutional" at best. Historically, it seems that a lot of problems that the national government fixes come as a result of court cases, which are complaints brought to the Supreme Court's attention. This is because the federal government is supposed to mediate the views and interests of our country, not control and implement them. The federal government is not supposed to have one view of how our country should be; and in our republic that is nearly impossible to have. The government when mediating, however should mediate through the eyes of the Constitution.
Delete-Cassidy Schells p.2
I agree with the Controlled Substances Act. Having five "schedules" of drugs proves the practicality and efficiency of such an act. This law is one that really protects the well-being of citizens, regardless of the drug potential to make big bucks or lower crime rates. I feel that because the powers of the federal government are more separated than the stat governments, they should have supremacy over the states; this justifies the supremacy clause. To me, as an average citizen, laws are laws. State laws seem to affect me just the same as federal laws. However, state laws differentiate and, therefore, allow some states to treat their citizens differently, in positive and negative ways; and some majorities can more easily get their agendas across. Well in the case of Nebraska and Oklahoma v. Colorado, Colorado acted supreme like the federal government, but not responsible enough by having marijuana negatively affect the other states. In this case, the Supreme Court must be supreme in order to protect the other states; and this would not have happened if Colorado simply obeyed the law.
ReplyDelete- Cassidy Schells p.2
Colorado should not have the right to legalize marijuana. The federal government made a law that banned marijuana in every single state, so anything that opposes this is illegal. Some may argue that the government should never have the right to control what states want to legalize based on the 10th amendment. However, our system of government requires us to follow the rules that our government makes. Making laws at the state level that opposes the federal government should not be allowed, and if a state argues with the government over an issue the federal government wins (supremacy clause).
ReplyDeleteJames Stock p.3
Delete