re: State's medical marijuana proposition doesn't trump federal regulations (was Re: !!! Nov-L: Calif. City Plans Marijuana Giveaway (fwd))
>Though the council passed a resolution denouncing the raid, there is no >official city sponsorship of the event - council members and medical >marijuana advocates are simply acting on their own in a public space, >said >City Attorney John Barisone. > >DEA spokesman Richard Meyer was surprised at the plan. > >``Are you serious? That's illegal. It's like they're flouting federal >law,'' >he said. ``I'm shocked that city leaders would promote the use of >marijuana >that way. What is that saying to our youth?'' [The following is my response to a related article (unfortunately not on-line) from the Opinion section of the San Jose Mercury News by Larry N. Gerston, a professor of political science at SJSU and political analyst at NBC3, wherein the question is asked whether we should have obey laws we don't like. Larry, Your September 11 SJMN op-ed piece, "State's medical marijuana proposition doesn't trump federal regulations," made some good points regarding the current balance of power between the states and federal government and the importance of obeying laws. And in a perfect world I'd agree, but this is not that world. Sometimes civil disobedience or even criminal action is needed to pressure legislators or the courts to doing what's right. Governmental systems have an inherent mandate to increase power and rarely give it up. When those in authority encounter impediments they will often seek a means, occasionally illegal, to achieve their ends. Our system of checks and balances (including the states) was created to thwart the most dangerous form of anarchy, anarchy from within. Whenever this system fails all our liberties are at stake. Such is the case with the apparently illegal enactment of the 14th Amendment upon which is based much of current federal authority. At the close of the Civil War the Republican controlled Congress sought to legally "lock in" the expansion of federal authority it had gained as a result of battlefield victories with Joint Resolution No. 127 proposing a 14th Amendment. But once again the Southern States stood in their way. Although President Jackson (who succeeded Lincoln) and Congress had acknowledged the legitimacy of the these duly elected governments, in their frustration the 39th Congress voted, on December 5, 1865, to deny seats in both Houses to anyone elected from the 11 southern States. They also ejected New Jersey Senator Stockton who opposed the bill and would have cast the deciding ballot, and refused to count the denied southern representative's numbers when computing the two-thirds majority Constitutionally required for passage. Whether it requires two thirds of the full membership of both Houses to propose an Amendment to the Constitution or only two thirds of those seated or two thirds of those voting is a question which it would seem could only be determined by the Supreme Court. Congress cared little about these "minor irregularities" in the proposal and voting process, they proceeded to submit the amendment to the States for ratification. But, surprise, things did not go well. After some legislatures first ratified and then recanted, in the end 16 of the 37 states rejected the measure. When the State of Louisiana rejected the 14th Amendment on February 6, 1867 [making the 10th State to have rejected the same or more than one-fourth of the total number of 36 States of the Union (as of that date) leaving less than three-fourths of the States to possibly ratify the same] the Amendment failed. It could not have been revived except by a new Joint Resolution of the Senate and House of Representatives in accordance with Constitutional requirement. Congress decided that states legislatures were not free to change their minds on ratification and ignored all those who did so. On the 20th of July 1868 Secretary of State Seward issued his proclamation of ratification of the fourteenth amendment, in which, after reciting the law of 1818 requiring him to publish the ratification of an amendment to the Constitution in the newspapers. However his language in the proclamation shows very clearly that Mr Seward had his doubts about the Constitutionality of the ratification process, and he takes pains to relieve himself of any responsibility by declaring that - "Neither the act just quoted from, nor any other law, expressly or by conclusive implication, authorizes the Secretary of State to determine and decide doubtful questions as to the authenticity of the organization of State legislatures or as to the power of any State legislature to recall a previous act or resolution of ratification of any amendment proposed to the Constitution". The Senate brushed aside Secretary Steward's concerns and on the next day Senator Sherman offered a Joint Resolution declaring that three fourths and more of the States had ratified the proposed Amendment, and therefore that it was a part of the Constitution. Secretary Steward was
!!! Nov-L: Calif. City Plans Marijuana Giveaway (fwd)
Hrmmm. Are Governor Bush's daughters going to move? -- Forwarded message -- Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 10:35:30 -0700 From: Nora Callahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Nov-L: Calif. City Plans Marijuana Giveaway City Plans Protest With Pot Giveaway By MARTHA MENDOZA .c The Associated Press Calif. City Plans Marijuana Giveaway SANTA CRUZ, Calif. (AP) - City leaders plan to join medical marijuana users at a pot giveaway at City Hall next week, hoping to send a message to federal authorities that, in this town, medical marijuana is welcome. The invitation comes one week after agents from the Drug Enforcement Agency arrested the high-profile owners of a pot farm and confiscated 130 plants that had been grown to be used as medicine. ``It's just absolutely loathsome to me that federal money, energy and staff time would be used to harass people like this,'' said vice mayor Emily Reilly, who with several City Council colleagues plans to pass out medical marijuana to sick people from the garden-like courtyard at City Hall on Tuesday. Though the council passed a resolution denouncing the raid, there is no official city sponsorship of the event - council members and medical marijuana advocates are simply acting on their own in a public space, said City Attorney John Barisone. DEA spokesman Richard Meyer was surprised at the plan. ``Are you serious? That's illegal. It's like they're flouting federal law,'' he said. ``I'm shocked that city leaders would promote the use of marijuana that way. What is that saying to our youth?'' State law in California, as well as Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington, allows marijuana to be grown and distributed to people with a doctor's prescription. Federal law prohibits marijuana use under any circumstances. In recent months, federal agents - working without local support - have been busting pot clubs and farms in Northern California, including a small pot farm last week about 55 miles south of San Francisco, arresting owners Valerie and Michael Corral. No indictment was filed against the couple, leading activists for medical marijuana; their attorney said federal authorities do not plan to prosecute. A spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney's office said she could not comment. California medical marijuana growers and distributors work closely with local law enforcement, and are quite open about their programs. In fact, the farm raided by DEA agents had been featured in national media, and the program is listed in the local telephone book. ``The courage of the Santa Cruz City Council and the growing anger in Congress are signs of a genuine grassroots rebellion all across this country that will put an end to these attacks on the sick and vulnerable,'' said Robert Kampia, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Marijuana Policy Project. In 1992, 77 percent of Santa Cruz voters approved a measure ending the prohibition of medical marijuana. Four years later, state voters approved Proposition 215, allowing marijuana for medicinal purposes. And in 2000, the city council approved an ordinance allowing medical marijuana to be grown and used without a prescription. 09/11/02 22:21 EDT Copyright 2002 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL. -- Nora Callahan The November Coalition, founded in 1997 is a 501 (c) (3) nonprofit organization, your gifts are tax deductible. You can send your donation to: The November Coalition 795 South Cedar Colville, WA 99114 Visit our website at: http://www.november.org November-L is a voluntary mailing list of the November Coalition. To unsubscribe, visit http://www.november.org/lists/ or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the command "unsubscribe"
