Governor Chris Christie to implement New Jersey’s medical marijuana program

Source: Raw Story

New Jersey Republican Governor Chris Christie announced Tuesday that he would lift his suspension on implementing the state’s medical-marijuana program.

"We're moving forward with the program as it was set up," said Christie at a press conference. "I believe that the need to provide compassionate pain relief to these citizens of our state outweighs the risk we are taking in moving forward with the program."

Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/07/19/governor-chris-christie-to-implement-new-jerseys-medical-marijuana-program/

---

He says he has to do it.

I don't like him or his policies, but this is the right thing to do.

to regulate marijuana in the first place, will move to prohibit the implementation of this policy.

Remember how the commerce cause gives the federal government authority to enact health care reform? It works that way for marijuana too.

is engaging in interstate commerce?

Do you recognize any limits on fedgov power?

Do you not remember this? 5-4 case from 2005.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

For 70 years that authorized segregation. Whether it was right or wrong is irrelevant, it was the law. As is the case with the weed being grown in the back yard.

Mind you that the justices we Dems most Identify with were in the majority in Gonzales. This isn't a liberal vs. conservative thing. And trust me, if you're a liberal you are going to want a strong commerce clause.

How do you think the Civil Rights Act was upheld against backwoods restaurants catering only to local populations and continuing segregation?

Regulating pot is a terrible waste of money and, quite frankly, people's lives. But it certainly is Constitutional.

are okay with un-Constitutional legislation, so long as it is the "right" un-Constitutional legislation. That is one of the reasons why we are in the mess we are in.

To the knowing observer, it is clear that the drug war and the laws that prohibit the private consumption of certain drugs are un-Constitutional. Prohibition laws, themselves, violate every tenet of limited government that is embodied in the Constitution. That is why it was necessary to amend the Constitution in order to prohibit the drug known as alcohol.

In view of that, how can it possibly be Constitutional to prohibit other drugs without going through the formal amendment process?

:fistbump:

decision, and implying your comparison says something negative about Hitman?

Nothing cool about that kind of debating tactic, Cool Logic.

Besides, Plessy was a 14th amendment case, not a commerce clause case, so not even relevant to the real issue at hand.

It was clear from your Reply # 5 that you were unaware of the SCOTUS decisions that Hitman and I cited in response.

Rather than accept new information graciously, or at least silently, you made an ad hominem attack on Hitman, using an irrelevant racist SCOTUS decision, to boot.

You could have found plenty of overruled commerce clause cases, instead of a racist decision that you imply Hitman would have approved of.

I'm sure you can do better than apples and oranges and ad hominem.

At what point is an activity so local that it has no impact on what happens across state lines?

On balance, most everything I know about the framers reveals them to have been men who erred on the side of liberty, rather than restriction. Thus, I'm pretty damn sure their intent was not for the sphere of fedgov to spread into my backyard garden--vegetable or otherwise.

Now, one for you. Why do you think it was necessary to amend the Constitution in order to prohibit the drug known as alcohol?

Given that they did, how can it be Constitutional to prohibit other drugs without going through the formal amendment process?

but after FDR had threatened the court packing plan. (Now, THAT threat was 3 dimensional chess that worked, as well as evidence of mega guts. "Supreme Court stopping me from helping people who are hurting? Find me a way to stop the SCOTUS from doing that legally and I will fix their wagon." "Yes, sir, Mr. President." And they did, and he used it. SCOTUS backed down far and fast. Did not invalidate another New Deal measure, ever.)

comes under the commerce power, so it's pretty much irrelevant what a DU poster does or does not recognize.

The framers' intent was to make a free-trade zone out of the United States. For example, it prohibited things like North Carolina not allowing goods to pass freely from Virginia to South Carolina. However, like the Necessary and Proper Claus, the Commerce Clause has become "elastic."

Just as Jefferson warned, the natural tendency is for government to grow. Like a poisonous vine, it sprouts through any gap. What is really needed is a repeal of the commerce clause and an amendment to the Bill of Rights that says: "Congress and the States shall make no law interfering with production and commerce, foreign or domestic."

McConnell.

Trouble with original intenters like Scalia is that they are not terribly consistent. Original intent seems to mean whatever they want it to mean in every given case.

Moreover, we have no evidence that the states that ratified the Constitution were also ratifying Jefferson's warning, so we're pretty much "stuck" with the language of that great document, despite Scalia's imagination, or anyone else's.

A government must know its limits. If they can't handle what has actually been delegated to them, they shouldn't endeavor to take on more.

"should" is besides the point in a debate of Constitutional issues. The Constitution never says the federal government may exercise these powers only if it does well at all of them.

In the context of the commerce clause, the distinction between limited government and small government is not what you were arguing. You were arguing "smaller" reach of the commerce power, a power expressly delegated to Congress by the states.

Now, if you want to argue that Congress had no business enacting DOMA because regulating marriage was a power reserved to the states and individuals under Amendments 9 and 10 of the Constitution, you could rightfully say you were arguing about the federal government being one of limited powers.


ETA: This is it for me for now. Have to get to things other than posting. I'll try to remember to check back later today, though.

extend into my backyard and pick my vegetables.

much like the War on Poverty and the War on Terror.

Oh, sorry. I forgot for a second that people actually believe that as to the War on Terror. Didn't mean to burst anyone's misunderstanding.

The proper term for folks mistaking a fake war for a real one that brings in the powers of the CIC, which was the subject of my post, is not usurpation.

And did you read my post in the context of Reply 1, which speaks of "authority" to regulate marijuana?

Please don't tell me what I cited.

As I've now posted twice, and this makes the third time, the reference is to the powers of a CIC, which he or she has under the Constitution in a real war, but not in a fake one, like the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty or the {Congressionally-authorized} War on Terror.

You missed the point.

this side issue that most people either don't care about or in favor of (medical mojo).

Someone should warn him about the munchies though - in the offchance this move was personal. :D

Kudos to Christie for doing this.

marijuana does not incense them much (lol)

to grow your own pot. It's the one area in which the left and right can agree. It's the portion of the population that believed "Reefer Madness" was true that's the problem and the politicians, left and right, who feel they need to pander them.

and do as former Governor Janet Napolitano did, and just follow the will of the people.

I hate it when they call themselves "servants of the people" instead of what they really are, banana republic dictators!

I mean would they dare go there?

"President wants to take away your pot!"