Gravelle's Politics, News, Satire and more @ Gravelle's Daily Scoff - Just turn your head and scoff

Smokin’ Mad

October 16th, 2010

When booze was prohibited, it required a constitutional amendment.

You see, in 1920, our legislators realized and respected that the federal government had NO authority to “ban” anything, including alcohol. So the 18th amendment authorizing prohibition was drafted and ratified.

That’s the way these things have to be done by lawmakers who are bound by the constraints of our dusty ol’ Constitution.

It is a conservative position, perhaps THE conservative position, that the Federal Government is subservient to the states, and the states to the Constitution. Therefor, those of us who are conservatives should be (literally)

Eric Holder

“up in arms” when der Attorney General Eric Holder decides that the commerce clause is all-encompassing enough for him to declare war on California.

Ending the alcohol prohibition of the Progressives’ enacted in the Democrat Woodrow Wilson administration was a “smaller, less-intrusive government” position, ergo, a conservative position. And as I’ve argued time and time again, so is marijuana legalization, via repeal of the Democrat Lyndon Johnson administration’s illicit legislation.

Either you’re a conservative, or you endorse Washington’s disregard for state’s rights. You can’t have it both ways…

If you’re not a hypocrite,
please click whatever ad shows up here –>
(If you ARE, please click twice)

Just one click helps to support the Daily Scoff!

Tags: Crime & Punishment · Democracy · Drugs · Federal Government

3 responses so far ↓

  • 1 gurureoul // Oct 16, 2010 at 11:08 am

    Remember that Holder is just doing his job and following precedent. The real problem is with the interpretation of the Commerce Clause, which has been very broadly interpreted for 70+ years. I don’t think it will work against Prop 19 for the same reason it didn’t work against medical marijuana – though the feds can enforce whatever crazy laws it wants to under the historically broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause, there is no constitutional justification for trying to force a State to agree with them. Prop 19 has no bearing on federal law, and so it does not tread on the federal government’s right to enforce its laws.
    The argument about the Supremacy Clause (like the Feds did in Arizona) also doesn’t hold water. The Controlled Substance Act specifically states that it is not intended preempt any state law that does not positively conflict with the federal law, including matters of criminalization. And since nothing in Prop 19 forces any citizens or local government to violate federal law it is completely possible to follow both laws simultaneously. Hence there is no conflict and the Supremacy Clause wouldn’t come into play.

  • 2 admin // Oct 16, 2010 at 11:38 am

    His “job” is to uphold the law of the land.

    The fact that he, and now local D.A.s throughout California, are taking it upon THEMSELVES to determine which laws are and are not Constitutional is abhorrent.

    THAT, is most definitely NOT their job…


  • 3 Barry // Oct 16, 2010 at 3:14 pm

    Wow. If I had been sitting on the fence (which I am not) I’d have to wonder if this latest kick in the face wouldn’t have pushed me over to the Pro side.

    I’m disgusted as are many about this. It’s one thing to be opposed, but quite another to actively campaign against it, complete with threats, half baked scaremongering, and outright untruths,.

    It is a sad commentary on where our country is right now. Our forefathers would be appalled. Anyone who calls themselves an American will support Prop 19 and send a clear message to Washington that we do not live in a dictatorship.

Leave a Comment

Political Satire @ Gravelle's Daily Scoff - Just turn your head and scoff with us at the daily news and politics from a Libertarian conservative perspective