1 vote

If you use the 10th Amendment to bring drug laws back to the states?

If we find politicians who are willing to use the tenth amendment to bring the drug laws back to the states but are not for legalization or decriminalization on the state level. They are going to run into a couple tricky spots.

They will be ask:

1) what do you do with all those people found guilty of prior federal drug charge?

2) what would be the role of the Federal government on the drug issue?

I am not asking everyone who is for the legalization of drugs to come comment on how this thinking is wrong. I am saying if this is the conditions and you can only get to the 10th Amendment stance how do you cover the other two problem areas for this stance? What would be your stance to defend these two questions? In other words what would be your transition plan be?

on the first one how do you set forward a plan that does not freak people out?

on the second one would the Federal Government always have a role to play with anything that comes across our boarders?

If you are a person who has to have it all your own way and cannot consider these questions under these conditions your response will not really help me so please don't answer.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Whatever the case is

It is my opinion that using a central government to break up state laws can be very dangerous to any attempt to re-establish Federalism, as even if it temporarily does good in promoting personal liberty, such as getting rid of segregation, there are long term consequences, as it allows the central government to have a clear advantage in power over the states.

Nothing Wrong with your Thinking.

Liberal States,the ones legalizing medical Marijuana, have never heard of the 10th amendment argument.

Here is another concept.

It took the 18th amendment to create prohibition on Alcohol. This required 2/3rds ratification.

2/3rds of states now have legalized Medical Marijuana, last I checked.

Does not this invalidate an unconstitutional federal intrusion on power ?


"Take hold of the future or the future will take hold of you." -- Patrick Dixon

fireant's picture

Big if.

It won't happen until the money-go-round from us to DC and back to the states is stopped. 10th Amendment politicons talk all puffy, but if they are not willing to reject fed $, they are talking junk.
But, you ask for answers to your questions:
1) Legally, nothing. Those people were sentenced under existing law at the time. If it was found however, that the existing law was unconstitutional, I suppose a judge would be compelled to let them go.
2) The fedguv should only be involved with crime that crosses state lines.
Ps: The way to stop the money-go-round is repeal of the 16th and 17th Amendments.

Undo what Wilson did

Ending the Fed would end the money-go-round

There will likely be very few states where citizens are willing to pay taxes to foot the entire bill for the drug war.

Fiat money funds the massive federal intrusions into our lives - and since local politicians are all to willing to accept those funds, cutting them off at the source may be the only solution.