Virginia AG Ken Cuccinelli Open To Legalizing Marijuana, Cites 10th Amendment


#1

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli Open To Legalizing Marijuana

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is raising eyebrows saying he “may” support legalizing pot. Cuccinelli was speaking to Larry Sabato’s political science class at UVA and told the students that he was open to the idea of making marijuana legal.

It may have caught the students at the by surprise, Cuccinelli’s answer came after a student asked what he thought about the drug being made legal in Colorado and Washington.

“I don’t have a problem with states experimenting with this sort of thing I think that’s the role of states,” Cuccinelli said.

Sabato, the well known political analyst, who invited Cuccinelli to speak, couldn’t believe what he had heard.

“Frankly if people hear that whole answer, it may change his image somewhat. It was not stick-in-the-mud, that’s for sure,” said Sabato. “It was suggestive of a willingness to change marijuana policies in Virginia eventually.”

While Cuccinelli holds personal conservative convictions on any number of issues he almost always prefers states to make the final call. Another example? Gay marriage.

In a 2011 interview, Cuccinelli told me he is personally opposed to same-sex marriage, but save for a constitutional amendment, believes it should not be banned by the federal government.

“Frankly, I think it is worth some consideration for the things that aren’t reached by the federal constitution to just leave it to each state,” he said.

I really like this guy. He’s a true social and fiscal conservative, a huge 10th amendment supporter and he’s running for Governor of Virginia this year. Rand Paul already endorsed him. I really hope he wins.


#2

[quote=“Jebby, post:1, topic:38144”]
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli Open To Legalizing Marijuana

I really like this guy. He’s a true social and fiscal conservative, a huge 10th amendment supporter and he’s running for Governor of Virginia this year. Rand Paul already endorsed him. I really hope he wins.
[/quote] I’d like to see it legalized at the federal level and be done with.


#3

The Feds have no authority to either legalize (if by legalize you mean regulate and tax it, or pass any law concerning it’s intrastate growing, use, sale, or possession) or criminalize it. Drug policy is a state issue.


#4

[quote=“Jebby, post:3, topic:38144”]
The Feds have no authority to either legalize (if by legalize you mean regulate and tax it, or pass any law concerning it’s intrastate growing, use, sale, or possession) or criminalize it. Drug policy is a state issue.
[/quote] Well it’s illegal at the Federal level. The DEA are going into medical marijuana stores in California and shutting them down. And these facilities mind you, that they are harrassing are following state law to a tee. In alot of these instances they aren’t even producing signed search warrants.


#5

Exactly. I don’t know where the Fed got the idea it had the authority to prohibit liquor, and I certainly don’t see where the Condtitution gave them the authority to prohibit a plant, or any other drug, for that matter.
What irritates the daylights out of me are self-proclaimed “conservative” “do-gooders” who go along with the federal government over-reaching their powers because it sounds good to them, and goes along with their personal views of an object.

Any self-proclaimed Conservative who believes in the rule of law ought to standing up applauding Cuccinelli.
I DO!!!


#6

Well you should read it again then, article 6 clause 2


#7

You are such a progressive when it comes to the Constitution.

Supremacy clause does not grant powers, and it only grants supremacy for Constitutional laws.

There is a reason that there was a Prohibition amendment, it is because that was the only Constitutional way to do it.


#8

wrong, it also grants supremacy to treaties

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

you know darn well that our drug laws come from a treaty. Even though you dont like it, it is still clearly constitutional. This crazy claim of unconstitutionality is a ploy the liberaltarins use to and confuse the constitutionally ignorant.


#9

Drug laws were put in place long before any treaties, and those treaties do not form U.S. criminal law. Furthermore, the treaties cannot be unconstitutional and still valid. Otherwise, they would have made Obamacare a treaty and avoided the fight.

Key Constitutional Grants
of Powers to Congress
Article I, Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;–And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Again, there is a reason prohibition required a Constitutional amendment.


#10

Using your logic a gun ban treaty with the U.N. would be Constitutional.


#11

They cant reverse a right, like a treaty cant ban guns but it can go into territory covered by the 10th amendment. The SCOTUS ruled on that as early as 1796.

Otherwise, they would have made Obamacare a treaty and avoided the fight.

thats just silly, a treaty would take more senate votes to pass than a filibustered bill

Again, there is a reason prohibition required a Constitutional amendment.

Youre acting like they tried to ban alcohol by treaty and then had to fall back to a constitutional amendment. There was no need, the support for prohibition was vast.


#12

The federal government cannot create more powers than it was enumerated, via treaty or otherwise. So no it cannot interfere with 10th amendment powers, which are simply everything not given to Congress.

Youre acting like they tried to ban alcohol by treaty and then had to fall back to a constitutional amendment. There was no need, the support for prohibition was vast.

No, the point is Congress couldn’t just pass a law or make a treaty and create a new power for itself. Prohibition is not the jurisdiction of the federal government, no matter how it is spun.


#13

Its not creating powers its abiding by a treaty. The SCOTUS ruled on this while George Washington was still president.


#14

Sure it is. The powers created by the Congress in crafting the treaty that are implemented into law. The federal government can only do what it is allowed, nothing more.


#15

Problem is; they’ve been overstepping their authority for so long they think nothing of it and get all indignant when asked, “Is that Constitutional?” Like, “How dare you question my authority? Don’t you know who I am?”


#16

and its allowed to make treaties that are the supreme law of the land


#17

And the treaties cannot do what Congress cannot already do. End of discussion.


#18

just saying that doesnt make it so, as I have pointed out that it was ruled while all the founding fathers were still alive that treaties were able to do that. You can whine and cry and pout and stomp your feet but this was settled over 200 years ago and claiming that treaties cant do that is historically inaccurate, factually inaccurate and constitutionally ignorant.