Why I believe the DEA and the war on drugs is illegal

[Xicano]

Richard Nixon gave us the DEA and the Controlled Substance Act. This Act is what the DEA and other authorities claim they get their authority to conduct a war on drugs. But is this Act really kosher with the Constitution?

It has always been my impression that the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are quite clear that the federal government's powers are limited to what is granted by the Constitution and all rights not listed in the Constitution are nonetheless retained by the people which is why I feel is the reason alcohol prohibition is found in the Constitution. Based on the language from the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, in my opinion, the Volstead Act would have been unconstitutional without the Eighteenth Amendment granting the government authority to prohibit alcohol. Conspicuously there's no such similar Amendment in the Constitution with respect to marijuana or other drugs.

It is on this bases along with the language of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and, the findings stated by the US Supreme Court in the case of Marbury v Madison that any Act which conflicts with the Constitution is null & void. Throw in for good measure this part of the Fourteenth Amendment ("No State shall make or enforce any law which shall....deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.") where, for example, marijuana consumers don't enjoy equal protection of the laws in comparisons with alcohol consumers. Now you have three conflicts between the Controlled Substance Act vs the US Constitution making the war on drugs illegal three different ways in my opinion.


:rant:

[ixion]

1. the so-called 'war' on drugs is unconstitutional six different ways from Sunday

as the saying goes... that hasn't stopped them from pursing it for 40 years. :grr:

[midnight]

3. Our Law schools are graduating a bunch of spoon feed

thinkers. Time to teach the constitution!

[Xicano]

5. I totally agree

I think schools should teach the constitution as much as they teach reading, writing and math.

[midnight]

2. This is beautiful. Thanks for this wonderful read...

[Xicano]

7. Thanks midnight

:hi:

[JFN1]

4. Sounds right.

Great post - thank you! :yourock:

[Xicano]

6. Thanks JFN1

:fistbump:

[lib2DaBone]

8. If DEA agents busted a dice game...stuck the money and drugs in their pockets....

..would the American Public belive it? What would it take to believe the WOD is corrupt?

[Rage for Order]

9. That's what happens when the Commerce Clause is interpreted...

In an overly-broad manner. A broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause brought us the New Deal, but it also brought us the War on Drugs. My "favorite" decision re: the Commerce Clause is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn">Wickard v. Filburn, which essentially states that by not participating in interstate commerce, one is affecting interstate commerce. :crazy:

[Xicano]

10. Home Grown

Remember that woman who recently argued in the Supreme Court about how the interstate commerce wasn't being violated because everything (cultivation, sales and use) was taking place locally, but the court nevertheless still ruled against her? Sad isn't it? I mean if that doesn't prove to some people that its not about nothing else other than big business have usurped our country then I don't know what it'll take.

Allow me to play devil's advocate. Whatever the court says against marijuana with respect to the Commerce Clause (which of course only shows them to be a kangaroo court), using that argument still doesn't satisfy the equal protection of the laws clause in the Fourteenth Amendment cited above. In other words: so long as alcohol and tobacco remain legal their Commerce Clause argument (though bogus) doesn't eliminate the conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment and thus makes the Controlled Substance Act null & void as per Marbury v. Madison.


:smoke:

[Terran]

11. It's a moot point.

All 50 states have statutory schemes that substantially parallel the federal Controlled Substances Act. If there were no DEA, there would still be state-level enforcement.

Personally, I think the international character of the drug trade pretty much invalidates your argument, but that's just an uneducated guess.

[Xicano]

12. I have to say that I disagree

10th Amendment: ".........nor prohibited by it to the States.."

Does the Constitution anywhere prohibit the States in regards to this matter? For starters, so long as alcohol and tobacco are legal yes. Also, despite the fact that States don't have a green light to just arbitrary enact laws against its citizens without legitimate cause, other language in the 14th Amendment preclude the States.

14th Amendment: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

:)

[Terran]

13. I don't see how the US Constitution prohibits the states from

regulating the use, sale and possession of controled substances. Everything you're claiming here seems to be a very tenuous stretch, for me anyway. Certainly I don't believe that addiction and self-harm, which is basically what forms the criteria of the controlled substance schedules, falls under the purview of "privileges and immunities".

I do agree that the failure to treat alcohol in the same manner as controlled substances might be unconstitutional.