Monday, January 14, 2013

Feds "Going Nuclear" on California Pot Provider

The New York Times gave a sympathetic hearing to Mr. Nagourney, but Ann Althouse is having none of it:
Yes, and it is mind-boggling that those who argue for the broad interpretation of federal power and who scoff at the idea of the 10th Amendment and reserving powers to the state somehow can't grasp the meaning of their general propositions when they encounter an issue where they prefer the state policy to the federal policy. The NYT and other drivers of elite opinion ought to have to face up to the reality of what their legal propositions entail.

And quite aside from the problem of the allocation of power at the federal and the state levels, how about some consistency about equal justice under the law? Let the law — as written — apply the same way to everyone, whether they have a round face and 2 young daughters or not, whether they've gone to grad school or not, whether they have big visions of massive profits or they are living hand to mouth. If the law is wrong, change the law — for everybody. Don't cry over the people you think are nice — like David Gregory and Aaron Swartz. Nonphotogenic and low-class people deserve equal treatment, and cutting breaks for the ones who pull your heart strings is not justice.
Yet another data point in my conservative belief that we should not invest so much power in the federal government. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and all that.

1 comment:

  1. The law, aswritten, allows medicinal pot to be sold in California. The 9th and 10ty amendments specifically preclude the Federal government from enacting a law different from a state's in this case, since CA law does not approve interstate transactions, and drugs are never mentioned in the constitution . . . what law needs to be changed? We just need a federal government whic respects the constitution, and a supreme court that has read it.

    ReplyDelete