Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Medical Marijuana Challenges

Source: Associated Press

(05-18) 09:23 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --

The Supreme Court won't hear another challenge to California's decade-old law permitting marijuana use for medical purposes.

The high court on Monday refused to hear appeals from San Diego and San Bernardino counties, which say the justices have never directly ruled on whether California's law trumps the federal controlled substances laws.

Supporters say marijuana helps chronically ill patients relieve pain. Critics say the drug has no medical benefit and all use should be illegal.

San Diego supervisors had sued to overturn the state law after it was approved by voters in 1996, but lower courts have ruled against them.

San Diego and San Bernardino counties argued that issuing identification cards to eligible users, as required by the 1996 state law, would violate federal law, which does not recognize the state measure.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/05/18/national/w083115D89.DTL

Corrections facilities operators, prison guards, lawyers, police, the list goes on and on. It's going to be very difficult
to legalize freedom in the face of such powerful special interests.

They, by not taking this case, in essence sided with the lower courts, that said issuing state ID cards didn't "substantially" violate federal law.

Because they refused to take the case, the clinics stay open.


The high court on Monday refused to hear appeals from San Diego and San Bernardino counties, which say the justices have never directly ruled on whether California's law trumps the federal controlled substances laws.

Supporters say marijuana helps chronically ill patients relieve pain. Critics say the drug has no medical benefit and all use should be illegal.

San Diego supervisors had sued to overturn the state law after it was approved by voters in 1996, but lower courts have ruled against them.

San Diego and San Bernardino counties argued that issuing identification cards to eligible users, as required by the 1996 state law, would violate federal law, which does not recognize the state measure.

A state appeals court ruled that ID card laws "do not pose a significant impediment" to the federal Controlled Substances Act because that law is designed to "combat recreational drug use, not to regulate a state's medical practices."

I think many do not realize what actually happened.

Does Congress have the ability to delegate their Legislative Power to the DEA and FDA?

Article I
Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.


I would say no they don't. But that was exactly what they did with the Controlled Substances Act. Because the DEA and FDA now determine which substances are added or removed from the Schedules. So technically Congress doesn't have the power to legalize marijuana. That must be done by the DEA and FDA by removing it from the Drug Schedules.

The California gub-mint (the two counties) wanted to shut down the medical mj business in their areas, and they made the claim that the state issuing ID cards "interfered" with federal oversight. Their goal was to shut the system down. The Supremes refused to talk to them, they didn't hear the case, and let the lower court ruling (abbrevated verdict: No biggie, chill out, leave it be) stand.

Nothing's "prevented" here. There can be other venues for those arguments--this argument asked for a very narrow ruling.

You do know that the delegation of authority to DEA doesn't mean that that same authority can't be "un-delegated," I trust. Delegation isn't the same thing as making an agency co-equal. The power to make law--or un-make it, if it does not suit-- remains with the legislature.

We basically have a new law and Congress has had Zero involvement with making this new law. In fact the Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services has more of a role in making this new law against caffeine than Congress does. Congress has no role in making the new law against Caffeine. The Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services determines which schedule caffeine would be placed on.

Also the CATO Institutes Handbook to Congress recommends repealing the CSA. I think it should be done.

or fudge sauce with crystal meth, then Congress can get up off their asses and change the law.

To assert that the DEA or any other three-letter agency can act without something called "Congressional Oversight" is what is termed "crazy talk." No offense, but Congress's role is to oversee, and that's what happens. If they delegate, they delegate...but trying to sell a nefarious agenda behind delegation is, well, crazy talk.

Congress is the legislative branch. Not the Oversight Branch. In fact they would be in Constitutional compliance by delegating their oversight functions. Not their legislative power. The Constitution clearly states ALL, not some or that which they have not delegated, ALL legislative power is vested in Congress. I'm not saying there is a nefarious agenda behind it. Just that it's not Constitutionally correct for Congress to delegate their legislative power to the DEA, FDA, and HHS. Besides their oversight function is just constructionism. It's not actually mentioned in the constitution. Their legislative powers are mentioned and listed.

haven't done their job in the last few decades in this regard, doesn't mean they 'can't' after all.

They still manage to oversee things like steroids in baseball..... and military spending. We see those hearings every frigging year.

Just because they don't, doesn't mean they can't.

Even the budget is a legislative matter. Once the budget passes. Everyone in the government is compelled to spend the money in accordance to the newly passed spending law aka the budget. If you don't. You can go jail for spending Project A's money on Project B. That is a misappropriations of funds. But Congress simply cannot delegate it's legislative power. The Constitution does not allow for that. So that could be used to overturn the CSA in SCOTUS.

I should know, I've had to prepare enough frigging testimony for them.

I've also had to prepare testimony for military investigations, of things like accidents and misconduct.

Get CSPAN--you'd be surprised at how much Congressional oversight you'll see. Much of it is on CSPAN Three, but occasionally they rerun the stuff when there's no one on the floor.

This is San Bernardino V. California. San Bernardino has a trump card. A federal law trumps a state law and even provision of a state Constitution. But California also has a trump card. The CSA is a violation of the Constitution in several way. First they have delegated their legislative power. Also it violates the law making provisions. Because it's voted on by Congress. Signed by the President. Then these government agencies begin to change the law by adding to or taking away from it as they see fit. That's improper procedure. Congress votes on it. The president signs it. It's law end of process. It also violates the exclusive legislation clauses.

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

So it's up to Congress to make the law for the DEA and FDA. They cannot make that law themselves as they currently do. Now anyone can petition the DEA or FDA for a Schedule Change. Just like we can petition Congress. But if it is denied as it commonly is. How do We The People replace the people at the DEA and FDA with others more receptive to our will? We can't. That denies us participatory government and therefore democracy. It creates a dictatorship position for the DEA and FDA in a paramilitary civil war aka the War on Drugs. If Congress doesn't legislatively observe our will. We can vote them out. We can't do that to the DEA and FDA.

If you take issue, you gripe to your legislator, your legislator passes it to the appropriate oversight committee, and they look into it. If enough people take issue, the agency will be forced to reverse. There is a mechanism to back the truck up.

I really think what you're asking is for the Congress to do the job they delegated to these three letter agencies. That's not going to happen.

They can't make a law allowing them to delegate that power. They must change the Constitution. But it will float until someone goes to SCOTUS and calls Bull Shit.

If Congress did not delegate authority, they would have to consider so many question of regulation that they could not possibly get to all of them. Delegations of authority to the executive have been deemed constitutional for quite some time.

But it is just one easily overlooked word. "ALL" That is the most all inclusive word of all all inclusive words. But I have absolutely seen SCOTUS interpret "No" as meaning, Sure go right a ahead and do it! It's not the huge elaborate concepts they have problems with. It's the lil tiny single words, like no and all, they have severe problem understanding.

classifying drugs. While morphine is illegal to use with out presciption, it's legal to use as prescibed.

It;'s just like what the FDA does with sanitation rules for packaging or what the EPA does with setting mercury exposure limits. Those agencies are under the direction of the executive branch and the executive can basically do what they want to, such as order the DEA to suspend the schedule, alter theier schedule or not enforce their schedule.

But they have given the DEA and FDA the ability to fill in the blanks so to speak. They can even create blanks by removing items from the list. Doing that in effect legalizes the item removed. They Judiciary kind of does the same thing with Judicial discretion. They share it with prosecutors and even police. They both have discretionary powers. But it ultimately ends up being a Judicial discretion because it can put cases in court or take them out of court. But this is most definitely a law.

"In U.S. law, the word law refers to any rule that if broken subjects a party to criminal punishment or civil liability."

When the DEA or FDA place a substance on the Schedules. They are providing for criminal punishment and civil liability. So it's law.

:toast:

That's actually a sensible move on their part, for a change.

...which any educated person knows is completely unfounded nonsense.

The San Diego County supervisors have spent millions of taxpayer dollars litigating against state law. They sued to make the federal government order DEA raids on MM distributors who were operating perfectly legally under California state law.

This is great news!!

And pass the bong. No pot for you, Ms. Jacobs!!

:hippie:

-JB

Wonder if the Supremes will refuse the cross case too? (After the Ninth reverses Burns' decision of course.)

SENSE coming from this Supreme Court? I'm shocked. :)

that san diego county counsel and that of san bernardino would have signed off on these suits. But I suppose their fear of getting fired by the local politicians trumped everything. What a freakin waste of money.

:kick:

which will have the effect of getting the DEA to back the fuck off in any state that has a medical marijuana law.

That's where this has to be played out, not the courts.

As long as it's misclassified as Schedule I, the DEA will continue to be overbearing.

The Schedules are also Unconstitutional. Because the Constitution grants legislative powers to Congress. I can't find anywhere the Constitution allows Congress to delegate their legislative powers to the DEA and FDA. That is basically what they have done with the Drug Schedules. The DEA and FDA may place a substance on any of the five schedules making them illegal. So Congress has delegated their legislative powers to the DEA and FDA. Both of which are under the Control of the executive branch. So there are also separation of powers issues with the drug schedules.

which is why the original Harrison Act had to be based on TAX LAW.

Yes, this whole ridiculous and oppressive edifice was based on TAXES.

The Harrison Act was enacted because drugs made blacks revert to the jungle. The whole history of the Drug War is one bigotry after the next, all now combined to gut the Fourth Amendment and throw too many peaceful Americans into prison.

The history of the first shameful act of the Drug War is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Narcotics_Tax_Act

Keeping drugs illegal has caused much more human misery than allowing addicts free and legal access ever would have.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

:eyes:

Now I've heard everything.

Geesh!

I have encountered rather obnoxious defenders of the War on Drugs here.

Given that this is Democratic Underground, where you can find just about every opinion under the sun, it helps if you use the :sarcasm: tag when being sarcastic. It's a lot easier than expecting us all to read your mind.

Geesh.

We can hold entire conversations in sarcasm. Sometimes outsiders are hard pressed to follow those conversations. But I though that one was pretty obvious. Article III Section 3 says nothing about drug use. Just declaring war against Them. So you really had to streach for that one. I hope you enjoyed your lil work out. :sarcasm: Is that better? :eyes:

The 10th amendment states "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". Since there's nothing in the constitution about drugs, the courts have accepted the argument that drug prohibition falls under the power of Congress to "regulate interstate commerce". This is where it gets interesting in the California situation: Californians are selling prescribed pot to other Californians - there's no interstate commerce involved. Sooner or later someone will challenge the feds on this basis and I think the conservatives in the court do not want to run the risk of having to rule federal intervention unconstitutional.

Welcome to DU!

I never thought about it from that angle. Are you channeling Glenn Greenwald, or are you a lawyer?

Cheers.

Actually, I've been here a long time. I just don't post a lot. I'm not a lawyer, but I am a software engineer and I tend to be very analytical. I once engaged in a protracted online discussion regarding drug prohibition and did a bit of research in order to understand the (tenuous) legal underpinnings. BTW did you know that for some time it was legal in both California and Alaska to "grow your own". The feds could not touch it because there was no "commerce" at all involved. Alas, both states repealed it. Another point I should mention is that it seems to me that the consumption of plants is a right that belongs to the individual, not the state. Just as the feds are eager to usurp state powers, the states are eager to regulate that which belongs to the individual.

I thought there was still a "personal use" exception in Alaska. That seemed to me the most enlightened approach. A relatively small amount grown and consumed by yourself should in no way be against the law. Didn't realize the "grow your own" part had been repealed. Is it legal in any way in Alaska?

:(

All the way back to Anslinger and beyond. It was believed to be a state issue. The first known case of drug interdiction was actually done by President Lincoln. During the Civil War he personally went to Mother Ann, spiritual leader of the Shakers,and asked her to stop growing Opium Poppies to help the war effort. Lincoln was afraid the Opium Poppies would fall into the hands of the Confederacy. That would allow them to alleviate the suffering the Union was trying to inflict upon them. But even in a time of war as a matter of national security. Lincoln did not believe that he or Congress had the authority to compel Mother Ann to quit growing Opium Poppies. Mother Ann did agree to stop growing Opium Poppies for the sake of the Nation. Sadly enough the Shakers have been in a steady decline ever since then. They now face extinction. There are only about a dozen or so Shakers left.

when it has to do with ABORTION GAYS AND GUNS

I would think this pleases freepers too, but I could be wrong.

they just never hear cases that have to do with state rights on pot or they rule against them
raich v california

And the sign of a slowly turning tide. I just don't want Big Pharma to be in charge of research and development. I want my own garden.

Its almost a vote no on yes situation. "I think I'd better think it out again". to quote Lionel Bart. (Oliver)

KR

Four supremes are needed to hear an appeal. Looks like Thomas, Alito, Scalia and Roberts couldn't bump their knobby heads together and decide to take it. That's a stong suggestion that the trend is still moving towards legalization, or at least-decriminalization.

It will never help us here in Alabamaq@

and reform our prisons and courts --

Thanks for the post!

Its fascism

Our system may not be fascist, but that particular policy is

:hippie::smoke::hippie::smoke::hippie::smoke:

Go Obama!

NT!

sheriffs to make marijuana enforcement their lowest priority.

That will cause some exploded heads and blown minds!

Rock the Casba.

Glad to see that ruling was made. Or rather, not made.

Deborah Seiler, San Diego's registrar, is the former chief salesperson for Diebold in California, and has colluded with San Bernardino and Riverside county registrars to, a) 'swiftboat' our good CA sec of state, Kevin Shelly, out of office in 2004 on entirely bogus corruption charges (to be replaced by a Puke Diebold shill and Schwarzenegger appointee), and b) sued our current good secretary of state, Debra Bowen (like Shelly, elected by the voters, not appointed) to prevent mild election reforms in 2006 (--they lost that suit). (The reforms included items like an automatic audit in very close elections--nothing revolutionary like kicking Diebold the fuck out of our state).

So maybe this is why San Diego and San Bernardino counties have such corrupt fucks for county supervisors--that they would waste taxpayers' money on trying to stop medical marijuana? They weren't actually elected--they were Diebolded into office?

I think that a lot--in fact, most--wastage of taxpayers' money, and looting of taxpayers and citizens--comes back to this: The corpo/fascist operatives who are doing it were not really elected. Indeed, it is likely that the nearly 100% non-transparent, electronic vote counting system that we have now, across the U.S.--fast-tracked into place during the 2002 to 2004 period, and characterized by 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by far rightwing corporations, with virtually no audit/recount controls--was put in place precisely to continue the looting and nazification of our country and of course to continue the Forever War and mind-boggling war profiteering. When it doesn't result in major fucks like Bush and Cheney getting 're-elected,' it acts as a control on the better Democrats, who can either be 'swift-boated' by the corpo/fascist 'news' monopolies, or Diebolded out of office, or both, if they go too far in attempting to serve the interests of most Americans.

At the local level, it means nasty little fascist initiatives, like defying the state's voters on medical marijuana, and suing the secretary of state to prevent mild election reforms.

The county supervisor fucks (s)elected by Diebold & brethren in turn select the county registrar--a neat little package of fascist corruption. There are some kickass citizen groups in San Diego, San Bernardino and Riverside counties who have been challenging the non-transparent voting systems, and the culture of corporate secrecy that has surrounded our elections. If you live there, join them and start kicking some fascist ass. These county officials have been violating the public trust for too long.