WHY DOES THIS VIDEO MAKES PERFECT SENSE TO SO MANY PEASANTS?
Peasants' Sense IS Common Sense (minus 2%)
Saturday, October 27, 2012
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Jaborwocky's Challenge
THE DAWNING OF A NEW DAY COMES
I challenge all Presidential Candidates to discuss the real problems of our national economy, starting with the prohibition of Marijuana. This industriy is capable of infusing our economy with hundreds of thousands of jobs, and billions of dollars. Whereas, the federal prohibition against it is actually costing us hundreds of billions in annual cash and several million lost jobs.
“Hemp”
and “cannabis” are the traditional names for what is now called
“marijuana” or “pot.” prohibition of hemp makes no sense at
all, when the facts are that industrialized hemp:
- has no intoxicating “high” in it,
- is capable of replacing 90% of wood products,
- and 80% of petroleum products—including plastic,
- is annually renewable,
- and outproduces trees 4 to 1.
- Marijuana has never been proven to be a dangerous drug, but smoking it is legally dangerous according to the US Federal Government, which also has mandatory sentencing for it--all the way up to life imprisonment.
Over
850,000 people last year were arrested in the USA for being caught
with marijuana.2 This
leads to astronomical costs for courts, police, citizen/taxpayers and
our mental states about it.3
Meanwhile, experts estimate 70,000 tons of it are imported
each year, as well as 70,000 tons also being grown here in the
states. 4 (All of it pot,
not hemp—in a black market reaping billions annually)
That
is only for the medicinal marijuana! -- not even allowing industrial
hemp production for building materials, energy production, and
food—potentially 100 times more profitable than pot--which
is another lost-cost in our ailing economy. Obviously, using
marijuana for food, energy, and building would take us off the
petroleum codependency, and not only create jobs, but infuse the
economy with billions-- even if medicinal marijuana were still
federally illegal. 5
So,
that is the first costly irrational argument:
“industrial hemp is
dangerous,” ---
which is impossible to prove true since it involves
non-thc plants in the first place.
But
the government refuses to see ANY benefit from marijuana/hemp;
because
the government makes money overtly and covertly (i.e.illegal) on their never-ending
“Drug War”.
But in
an economy like we have now, it is impractical to ignore the economic
benefits that industrial hemp could provide.6 And then there are the environmental impacts of continuing the
use of petroleum, coal, forest-products, animal-proteins, and
poisonous pharmacopoeias. 7
The
question now is legally testing the “balance of powers” between
the Federal government and the State governments. In fact, the US
Supreme Court in a unanimous 9-0 opinion last year, decided that
there is the possibility that State laws and Federal Laws and the
rights of individuals within their state laws, because they are all
equal under our Constitution; citizens may have the right to a legal
decision from the courts, especially under citizens’ initiatives
and illegitimate federal statutory laws. This is a landmark decision
that begs for court cases on this to set precedents. 8
Another
mind-boggling Supreme court decision 6 years ago, claims that
“medical marijuana” is not a reality on the federal level, and
cannot be used as a defense against the Federal drug laws. So, we
have a “tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee legal conundrum. 9
The bottom-line is that Industrial hemp is vastly different from medical marijuana, and they should not be lumped together as illegal. Industrial hemp has no drug value whatsoever, thus it has no illegal use. So, why is it illegal?
Obviously,
medicinal marijuana and industrial hemp are here to stay. Not even
the most advanced state-of-the-art DEA can eradicate what keeps
escalating around medical marijuana and industrial hemp. Is there
any clarity or logic in this when our economy begs for help?
Some
people might say that “if we follow the money” we will find the
culprits. However, in an economic slump, if we follow the “Lack of
money”, we find that lack filled with innovative black markets.
After all, people will do what they need to survive, especially if
they are desperate.
I
am not trying to rationalize the black-market, I am merely pointing
out the obvious. I am pointing out that these multi-billions/year
underground industries are the elephant in the room no one is talking
about.10 The only
logical explanation is that those who choose to abuse the law, are
the ones benefiting from these activities; namely illegal growers,
crooked cops, and the Global Corporate Empire.
Meanwhile,
“state-legal” medical marijuana card holders are punished,
berated, and slandered. AND this while the local news publishes
locations of outdoor grows in Southern Oregon, thus jeopardizing
the security of many people.
Let
me just list the most obvious irrational parts of the Medical
Marijuana law and process:
- Medicine takes a doctor's expertise to decide, not politicians and government bureaucracies.
- Anything that medical marijuana helps heal is why any medical marijuana patient should have easy and reasonable access to it.11
- One plant can yield 2-4 pounds or less than an ounce, so limits like “6 mature plants” or “1.5 pounds of dried and cured buds” are ridiculous.
- Access through dispensaries is illegal, but not all patients can grow their own, so where do they get their medicine?
- The “caregiver/grower” is thus in a quandary as to how to afford the expenses of growing if they cannot be compensated for labor as well as supplies.
- With the difference between harvest yields, there can be no accurate number of pounds or plants that fit all patients, as some will need stronger medicine or more often need it than others.
- Medical Marijuana not only covers its own costs through fees, but now can supplement otherstate programs financially. But none of this money would be there if there is not a Medical Marijuana program.
- And this money must be allocated for safe patient access through a dispensary.
- Without dispensaries for those patients who cannot grow their own, there is only one recourse: find a caregiver/grower, which has often led to various unethical situations where growers have ripped off patients as well as the legal process. These people sell to anyone who will buy and do not care how much it hurts the program’s efficiency. So, without dispensaries, many patients have no choice but to keep going through growers who may or may not rip them off.
- If dispensaries were federally legal (they are state-legal in 8 of the 16 Initiative-states that have passed medical marijuana laws),12 They could be monitored for compliance and be a safe access source for patients. But instead of medical marijuana funds helping this happen, we have illegal dispensaries defying the federal law.
- Of course, at some point, the IRS would like to know who is making money on this, so they can tax them. And actually being accountable and transparent would make this work; but without any accountability it is really “organized crime” keeping the books and responsible for their taxes. So, how much tax are we losing on this? Several BILLION dollars a year!
- Most people are not aware that the more money someone invests in a grow, the more yield and better quality they will get. But for most who try to grow, they are limited in their financial resources and cannot afford to grow correctly. This means that the really huge, rich growers hiding behind medical marijuana status are the main ones abusing the program. All the little,poor people are left to fend the best they can.
- But for poor people, who have no chance to grow for themselves--If you cannot afford the medicine that keeps you alive, what would you do?
- So, limits on weight or plant numbers is irrelevant, as they make no sense at all.
- Amounts needed for medication are legally arrived at between doctor and patient and are totally up to doctor and patient.
- Access is not legally available except through a caregiver/grower relationship in most of the states that have passed medical marijuana laws.
- The federal law is not going away by itself and now threatens safe access.
- State initiatives are going against federal laws.
- Industrial hemp is completely ignored or discouraged.
- Accountability, at least in the tax on sale of medical marijuana, is nebulous at this time.
- Doing away with medical marijuana laws would not put a dent at all in the “US DRUG WAR,” which existed long before medical marijuana was recognized through initiatives.
Denial
is a sure sign of codependency. The denial of common sense, in
connection with drug laws is causing tremendous problems now for
millions of Americans. Are there any solutions on the horizon?
Well,
my solution is simple:
- Acknowledge that there is a “healthy” way to grow and dispense medical marijuana (and industrial hemp--just collecting all the stems from Oregon growers would already build several homes per year).
- Admit that “doctor-patient privilege” means just that and is no one else’s business.
- Agree that plant numbers and pound weight is irrelevant except for taxation of anydispensary profits.
- Allow the individual state initiatives their sovereign rights to decide the law for their state.
Without
any legal proof against marijuana’s beneficial effects, the
government has held to an illegal law for decades and imposed serious
penalties upon millions of citizens. All of that is funded by our
taxes, so we are paying for it.
It
is about time we demanded PROOF that
this plant is dangerous in any way, or else it should be allowed for
the states to decide.
Certainly, politicians have no training in medical realities and it is totally out of their jurisdiction, especially if they cannot prove their point in the face of the overwhelming scientific knowledge about it.
Certainly, politicians have no training in medical realities and it is totally out of their jurisdiction, especially if they cannot prove their point in the face of the overwhelming scientific knowledge about it.
At
the least, the government should be researching marijuana as a
medicine, but it does not. In fact, it is so
totally suspicious that they refuse to relate to the logical
economics -- that is, until we discover that
Big Pharma has a trillion dollar15
interest in this medicine, has been
researching it extensively, and is ready to trademark various
components of marijuana for sales. 16
No wonder we get the shaft on our citizen
initiatives in the face of this illegal law against medical
marijuana.
The
important point is, medical marijuana is not only a super powerful
medicine for a vast array of ailments from Cancer to menstruation,
but it also is one of the few medicines people could grow easily and
use for themselves without having to go to a pharmacy.
So,
I want to assert my right to grow my medicine in a safe and
reasonably priced manner without curtailment whatsoever, as long as I
do not break any laws that have victims. If it hurts no one else, my
choices in dealing with my health are my rights to exercise and are
reserved to me by the Constitution.
So,
what I want is:
1.
A reasonably safe way to grow my medicine,
2.
A reasonably safe way to dispense my medicine to others who need it,
3.
A reasonably safe way to obtain medical marijuana when my crops fail
or are ripped off,
4.
Reasonable limits to grow as much as I need for that purpose.
5.
A reasonable way to be accountable,
6.
To receive fair monetary compensation for my work,
7.
To pay taxes,
8.
Reasonable protection from rippers (including newspapers that publish
locations of grow sites),
9.
And I want the surplus of OMMP funds going into medical marijuana
research and drug-education programs (ones that do not target
marijuana--NO D.A.R.E. type programs) in schools.
We
are already going in this direction with OMMP; we are now putting
millions of dollars into the state coffers with medical marijuana.
And if we allowed for dispensary compensation to do the same
economically for our state OMMP needs, we would be providing
thousands of jobs generating billions of dollars without polluting or
going to war.
- imagine growers and dispensaries that are accountable and transparent,
- imagine the taxes from sales of medical marijuana,
- imagine the benefits of hemp building materials (they have the tinsel strength of steel)17,
- imagine healing people and our environment with these economies is possible.
- Imagine 850,00018 people a year in the USA NOT going to jail for pot,
- Imagine 850,000 USA court cases and costs per year eradicated,
- Imagine 850,000 American citizens not having their lives totally disrupted every year,
- Imagine no need for medical marijuana DEA raids or industrial hemp raids,
- Imagine how much pot John Lennon smoked before he wrote “Imagine”
- and would he have written it if he didn’t inhale?
- I want to see this problem resolved once and for all. I want to heal the cancer19 in my body, medical marijuana will do that. It IS a matter of life and death.
- I want to heal the environment, industrial hemp will do that.
- Plus I want to heal the economy. Both Medical marijuana and industrial hemp will do that. They will allow us to move intelligently with a healing modality that could change our dysfunctional systems into efficient tools for humanity’s more noble aspects to manifest.
A
final tidbit of marijuana weirdness is that even though they say it
has no medical value, the US government several years ago patented
marijuana and all and any of its derivatives. What does that mean
with all the info we now have? Pharmacopia Pot is on the horizon,
Big Pharma is lining up; and yet, obviously, marijuana and hemp use
will continue to escalate in our world. All the
state-of-the-art DEA drug war militia, and all the laws we could
possibly create to deal with the drug war have been impotent in the
face of this problem.
I know I am not the only one who notices the emperor is naked and wears “NO CLOTHES” in this global empire, no matter what his tailors say. And I feel confidant that cannabis is ready to play its part In changing the world. Let’s let the medicine heal us and the hemp buildings support our lifestyles. Let’s take our down-economy and use the opportunity to create state-wide industrial hemp growing and processing systems here that will put citizens needing jobs to work.
Personally,
I would even give up OMMP for Industrial Hemp, because the industry
of it would create the collective understanding of how beneficial
this plant is and how dumb the laws are. People would then get over
their hemp-phobia too. All my suggestions here are an attempt to
create a world where it is possible to have our pot and smoke it too,
as well as build our homes out of hemp and save the trees. It might
even be so good here that we could call it heaven on earth…. just
imagine……..
Jack Herer once said to me that people tell him "...not to preach about hemp, but," he said,
“Stress and anxiety are the main causes of disease in the body. If you lessen the stress you stay healthier and so you do not die early. So, I have to tell you to smoke pot to save your life.”
God put this amazing healing plant here on Earth, gave us a cannibinoid receptor system in our body, and made cannabis one of the most prolific pants ever; a plant that gives more medicine, food, fuel, and fiber than all the other plants on Earth COMBINED TOGETHER!
Editor's note:
Jack Herer once said to me that people tell him "...not to preach about hemp, but," he said,
“Stress and anxiety are the main causes of disease in the body. If you lessen the stress you stay healthier and so you do not die early. So, I have to tell you to smoke pot to save your life.”
When it comes right down to it, he is right.
The only abuses in using pot are actually personal growth points dealing with psychological effects and disorientation.
Even smoking pot with all its tars has helped my lungs survive pollution and tobacco smoke.
The only abuses in using pot are actually personal growth points dealing with psychological effects and disorientation.
Even smoking pot with all its tars has helped my lungs survive pollution and tobacco smoke.
God put this amazing healing plant here on Earth, gave us a cannibinoid receptor system in our body, and made cannabis one of the most prolific pants ever; a plant that gives more medicine, food, fuel, and fiber than all the other plants on Earth COMBINED TOGETHER!
<<- Historical pic of hemp harvesting on $10 bill
Cannabis is the # 1 natural renewable resource on the planet, and has been used by humanity ever since the caveman.
Only in the 20th century, in the age of oil, industrialism and global corporations, has it been made illegal.
Our founding fathers; Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and George Washington wrote in their journals and letters about this wonderful plant.
Jefferson encouraged the southern farmers to use hemp instead of tobacco on their plantations, writing them many letters about its benefits.
He even sent his agents to China to steal hemp seeds.
In fact, at one point in colonial times it was a law that every farm had to grow 10% of their crops to be hemp.
AND people could pay their taxes with hemp back then too!
Jack Herer taught many of us the truth about cannabis. More than that, he wrote the most extensive book on the subject ever published, including all the facts, figures and history of the conspiracy against hemp that illegally passed a law banning hemp in 1936. After more than 25 years of republishing this book, no one has ever been able to prove him wrong about hemp.
Cannabis is a wonderful plant that can help us create a beautiful Wonderland. We just need to be honest and truthful about it, then we can get on with the bliss of life on Earth. Thanks for taking the time to read what I have shared. Please pass this around if you want and comment to me,
thanks,
Neriah Lothamer
It makes no sense whatsoever in these hard times to ignore and make illegal the #1 natural resource on Earth.
Until we adjust our collective attitude toward Hemp, we will continue to use polluting and costly poisons for energy and building, and undigestable, chemically polluted, gmo soybeans for plant proteins.
YOU CAN Help clear the Hemp-phobia of America by supporting this common sense approach to jobs, economy, and clean environment with the #1 non-toxic, natural, annually renewable resource on Earth.
The estimated market is in the Trillion$!
Common sense says, "Legalize Industrial Hemp Now."
Please click the petition below.
1
Footnotes
, references, quotes and more talking-points:
Figure
1. Pharmacological actions of non-psychotropic cannabinoids (with the
indication of the proposed mechanisms of action).
.
2
The Supreme Court recently ruled that
the U.S. Justice Department, including the Drug Enforcement
Agency,
may prosecute state-authorized medical marijuana patients for
violating the federal Controlled
Substances
Act. What does this decision mean for seriously ill patients and for
the ongoing tension between
state
and federal laws?
3
Enforcing marijuana prohibition costs taxpayers an
estimated $10 billion annually and results
in the arrest of more than 858,000 individuals per year -- far more
than the total number
of arrestees for all violent crimes combined, including murder, rape,
robbery and aggravated
assault.
4
http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/MironReport.pdf
5
http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/mironreport.html
This
report concludes that marijuana legalization would reduce government
expenditure by
$7.7 billion annually. Marijuana legalization would also generate tax
revenue of $2.4 billion
annually if marijuana were taxed like all other goods and $6.2
billion annually if marijuana
were taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco. These budgetary
impacts rely on a range of assumptions, but these probably bias the estimated
expenditure reductions and tax revenues downward.
6
http://www.drugscience.org/Archive/bcr2/MJCropReport_2006.pdf
USA
2006 - Marijuana is the largest cash crop in the United States, more
valuable than corn
and wheat combined. Using conservative price estimates domestic
marijuana production
has a value of $35.8 billion. The domestic marijuana crop consists of
56.4 million
marijuana plants cultivated outdoors worth $31.7 billion and 11.7
million plants cultivated
indoors worth $4.1 billion. Despite intensive eradication efforts
domestic marijuana
production has increased ten fold over the last 25 years from 1,000
metric tons (2.2
million pounds) in 1981 to 10,000 metric tons (22 million pounds) in
2006, according to federal
government estimates. 4) Marijuana is the top cash crop in 12 states,
one of the top
3 cash crops in 30 states, and one of the top 5 cash crops in 39
states. The domestic marijuana
crop is larger than Cotton in Alabama, larger than Grapes, Vegetables
and Hay
combined in California, larger than Peanuts in Georgia, and larger
than Tobacco in both
South Carolina and North Carolina.
http://www.drugscience.org/Archive/bcr2/MJCropReport_2006.pdf
7
http://www.olywip.org/site/page/article/2011/01/11.html
"Hemp
is the standard fiber of the world. It is used to produce more than
5,000 textile products,
ranging from rope to fine laces, and the woody "hurds"
remaining after the fiber
has been removed contain more than seventy-seven per cent cellulose,
and can
be
used to produce more than 25,000 products, ranging from dynamite to
Cellophane." Popular
Mechanics, "Billion Dollar Crop", 1938 The
crop is grown in all industrialized nations except one. The
European Union subsidizes industrial hemp…..
8
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1227.pdf
9
http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/06/scotus.medical.marijuana/index.html
WASHINGTON
(CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled doctors can be
blocked from
prescribing marijuana for patients suffering from pain caused by
cancer or other serious
illnesses. In a 6-3 vote, the justices ruled the Bush administration
can block the
backyard
cultivation of pot for personal use, because such use has broader
social and financial
implications.
10http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.cnn.com/2005/LA
W/06/06/scotus.medical.marijuana/index.html
"Congress'
power to regulate purely activities that are part of an economic
'class of activities'
that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce is firmly
established," Justice
John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.
11
See figure 1 above
12
http://www.medicalmarijuanablog.com/dispensaries/state-by-state-listings-043.html
13
http://hightimes.com/grow/nico/6216
14
http://growweedeasy.com/easiest-grow-method-cfl-coco-coir
15
http://montanabiotech.wordpress.com/patent-trademark-cannabis-medical-marijuanastrains-
varieties-products-and-services/
16
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704677404576285011036650834.html
17
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AzbtWzwK8A
http://www.hemp.org/news/hempcrete-hemp-building-materials
http://www.hemphasis.net/Building/building.htm
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2010/09/hemp-houses-builtasheville/1
http://www.hempcompany.ie/node/186
18From
Norml: More than 800,000 Americans were arrested on marijuana charges
last year, and more than 5 million Americans have been arrested for
marijuana offenses in the past decade. Almost 90 percent of these
arrests are for simple possession, not trafficking or sale. This is a
misapplication of the criminal sanction that invites government into
areas of our private lives that are inappropriate and wastes valuable
law enforcement resources that should be focused on serious and
violent crime.
19
http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/5169.html
http://www.thenhf.com/article.php?id=497
http://www.nowpublic.com/thc_marijuana_helps_cure_cancer_says_harvard_study
HEMP
OIL CURES CANCER: Medical marijuana is becoming more and more
associated with
anti-carcinogenic effects, which are responsible in preventing or
delaying the development
of cancer. This means that cannabinoids offer cancer patients a
therapeutic option in the treatment of highly invasive cancers.
Before
we look at the hard medical science that sustains these statements go
to http://www.youtube.com/chrychek to
see a series of videos that will convince you of the validity of
these statements on cancer.
The
American College of Physicians wants it made legal, as do millions of
other people. If you or one of your loved ones every get cancer you
will be wishing that the government would begin to listen to this
medical organization. 12 Million new cases of Cancer Diagnosed in
2007 in the US. In addition Cancer also killed 8 million people
worldwide in 2007 - American Cancer Society After reading the
science and watching this video series I am certain that any sane
person with cancer or any late stage chronic disease will want free
and legal access to hemp oil with a maximum concentration of THC, the
active ingredient that is illegal in most places in the world. [ii]
The
medical science is strongly in favor of THC laden hemp oil as a
primary cancer therapy, not just in a supportive role to control
the side effects of chemotherapy. The International Medical Verities
Association is putting hemp oil on its cancer protocol. It is a
prioritized protocol list whose top five items are magnesium
chloride, iodine, selenium, Alpha Lipoic Acid and sodium bicarbonate.
It makes perfect sense to drop hemp oil right into the middle of this
nutritional crossfire of anti cancer medicines, which are all
available without prescription.
Hemp
oil has long been recognized as one of the most versatile and
beneficial substances known to man. Derived from hemp seeds (a member
of the achene family of fruits) it has been regarded as a super food
due to its high essential fatty acid content and the unique ratio of
omega3 to omega6 and gamma linolenic acid (GLA) – 2:5:1.
Hemp
oil, is known to contain up to 5% of pure GLA, a much higher
concentration than any other plant, even higher than spirulina. For
thousands of years, the hemp plant has been used in elixirs and
medicinal teas because of its healing properties and now medical
science is zeroing in on the properties of its active substances.
….....................................................
This
is NOT a Supreme Court RULING, but an"OPINION" they made
about "standing" issues of the court. The important thing
they say (unanimously) is that: under the "federalism" the
Constitutional founders used in the Constitution there are reasons
for federalism, namely to protect individual citizens and state's
rights with a true balance of powers. The statements they make
in this document lend arguments to the balancing of the rights when
states or individuals are dealing with federal laws. In other words,
they comment that there may be times when the federal law does not
supercede state law.
NOTE:
All BOLD & underline & italics are my additions, text is from
the original but this is a partial copy of the text, the complete
document is in pdf above as SupremeCourtOinion.pdf
Held:
Bond
has standing to challenge the federal statute on grounds that the
measure interferes with the powers reserved to States. Pp. 3–14.
(a)
The Third Circuit relied on a single sentence in Tennessee
Elec. Power Co. v.
TVA,
306 U. S. 118. Pp. 3–8.
(1)
The Court has disapproved of Tennessee
Electric as
authoritative for purposes of Article III’s case-or-controversy
requirement.
.............
(b)
Amicus,
appointed
to defend the judgment, contends that for Bond to argue the National
Government has interfered with state sovereignty in violation of the
Tenth Amendment is to assert only a State’s legal rights and
interests. But in arguing that the Government has acted in excess of
the authority that federalism defines, Bond seeks to vindicate her
own constitutional interests. Pp. 8–14.
(1)
Federalism has more than one dynamic. In allocating powers between
the States and National Government, federalism “ ‘secures to
citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign
power,’ ” New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 181. It
enables States to enact positive law in response to the initiative of
those whoseek a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times, and
it protects the liberty of all persons within a State by ensuring
that law enactedin excess of delegated governmental power cannot
direct or control their actions.
See Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U. S. 452, 458. Federalism’s
limitations are not therefore a matter of rights belonging only to
the States. In a proper case, a litigant may challenge a law as
enacted in contravention of federalism, just as injured individuals
maychallenge actions that transgress, e.g., separation-of-powers
limitations, see, e.g., INS v. Chadha, 462 U. S. 919. The claim need
not depend on the vicarious assertion of a State’s constitutional
interests,even if those interests are also implicated. Pp. 8–12.
......................
3
Cite as: 564 U. S. ____ (2011)
Syllabus
(2)
The Government errs in contending that Bond should be permitted to
assert only that Congress could not enact the challenged statute
under its enumerated powers but that standing should be denied if she
argues that the statute interferes with state sovereignty. Here, Bond
asserts that the public policy of the Pennsylvania, enacted in its
capacity as sovereign, has been displaced by that of theNational
Government. The law to which she is subject, the prosecution she
seeks to counter, and the punishment she must face might not have
come about had the matter been left for Pennsylvania to decide. There
is no support for the Government’s proposed distinctionbetween
different federalism arguments for purposes of prudential standing
rules. The principles of limited national powers and state
sovereignty are intertwined. Impermissible interference with state
sovereignty is not within the National Government’s enumerated
powers, and action exceeding the National Government’s enumerated
powers undermines the States’ sovereign interests. Individuals
seeking to challenge such measures are subject to Article III and
prudential standing rules applicable to all litigants and claims, but
here,where the litigant is a party to an otherwise justiciable case
or controversy, she is not forbidden to object that her injury
results from disregard of the federal structure of the Government.
Pp. 12–14.
(c)
The Court expresses no view on the merits of Bond’s challenge
to
the statute’s validity. P. 14. 581 F. 3d 128, reversed and
remanded.
.....................
.....................
SUPREME
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No.
09–1227 CAROL
ANNE BOND, PETITIONER v.
UNITED
STATES ON
WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
THIRD CIRCUIT [June
16, 2011]
JUSTICE
KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court.
This
case presents the question whether a person indicted for violating a
federal statute has standing to challenge its validity on grounds
that, by enacting it, Congress exceeded its powers under the
Constitution, thus intruding upon the sovereignty and authority of
the States.....
The
Court of Appeals held that because a State was not a party to the
federal criminal proceeding, petitioner had no standing to challenge
the statute as an infringement upon the powers reserved to the
States. Having concluded that petitioner does have standing to
challenge the federal statute on these grounds, this Court now
reverses that determination. The merits of petitioner’s challenge
to the statute’s validity are to be considered, in the first
instance, by the Court of Appeals on remand and are not addressed in
this opinion.......
In
the instant case, moreover, it is apparent—and in fact conceded not
only by the Government but also by amicus—that
Article III poses no barrier.
One who seeks to initiate or continue proceedings in federal court
must demonstrate, among other requirements, both standing to obtain
the relief requested, see Lujan
v.
Defenders
of Wildlife,
504 U. S. 555, 560–561 (1992), and, in addition, an “ongoing
interest in the dispute” on the part of the opposing party that is
sufficient to establish “concrete adverseness.” Camreta
v.
Greene,
563 U. S. ___, ___ (2011) (slip op., at 5) (internal quotation marks
omitted). When those conditions are met, Article III does not
restrict the opposing party’s ability to object to relief being
sought at its expense.
The requirement of Article III standing thus had no bearing upon
Bond’s capacity to assert defenses in the District Court. As for
Bond’s standing to appeal, it is clear Article III’s
prerequisites are met. Bond’s challengeto her conviction and
sentence “satisfies the case-orcontroversy requirement, because the
incarceration . . . constitutes a concrete injury, caused by the
conviction andredressable by invalidation of the conviction.”
Spencer
v.
Kemna,
523 U. S. 1, 7 (1998).
..................................
As
explained below, Bond seeks to vindicate her own constitutional
interests. The
individual, in a proper case, can assert injury from governmental
action taken in excess of the authority that federalism defines. Her
rights in this regard do not belong to a State.
A
The federal system rests on what might at first seem a counter
intuitive insight, that “freedom is enhanced by the creation of two
governments, not one.” Alden
v.
Maine,
527 U. S. 706, 758 (1999).
The Framers concluded that allocation of powers between the National
Government and the States enhances freedom, first by protecting the
integrity of the governments themselves, and second by protecting the
people, from whom all governmental powers are derived.
Federalism
has more than one dynamic. It is true that the federal structure
serves to grant and delimit the prerogatives and responsibilities of
the States and the National Government vis-à-vis one another. The
allocation of powers in our federal system preserves the integrity,
dignity, and residual sovereignty of the States. The federal balance
is, in part, an end in itself, to
ensure that States function as political entities in their own right.
But
that is not its exclusive sphere of operation. Federalism is more
than an exercise in setting the boundary between different
institutions of government for their own integrity. “State
sovereignty is not just an end in itself: ‘Rather, federalism
secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of
sovereign power.’” New
York v.
United
States,
505 U. S. 144, 181 (1992) (quoting Coleman
- Thompson, 501 U. S. 722, 759 (1991) (Blackmun, J., dissenting)).
Some
of these liberties are of a political character. The federal
structure allows local policies “more sensitive to the diverse
needs of a heterogeneous society,” permits“innovation and
experimentation,” enables greater citizen “involvement in
democratic processes,” and makes government “more responsive by
putting the States in competition for a mobile citizenry.” Gregory
v.
Ashcroft,
501
U.
S. 452, 458 (1991).
Federalism
secures the freedom of the individual. It allows States to respond,
through the enactment of positive law, to
the initiative
of
those who seek a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times
without having to rely solely upon the political processes that
control a remote central power. True, of course, these objects cannot
be vindicated by the Judiciary in the absence of a proper case or
controversy; but the individual liberty secured by federalism is not
simply derivative of the rights of the States.
Federalism
also protects the liberty of all persons within a State by ensuring
that laws enacted in excess of delegated governmental power cannot
direct or control their actions.
See ibid.
By
denying any one government complete jurisdiction over all the
concerns of public life, federalism protects the liberty of the
individual from arbitrary power. When government acts in excess of
its lawfulpowers, that liberty is at stake.
The
limitations that federalism entails are not therefore a matter of
rights belonging only to the States. States are not the sole intended
beneficiaries of federalism. See New York, supra, at 181. An
individual has a direct interest in objecting to laws that upset the
constitutional balance between the National Government and the States
when the enforcement of those laws causes injury that is concrete,
particular, and redressable.
Fidelity to principles of federalism is not for the States alone to
vindicate.
The
recognition of an injured person’s standing to object to a
violation of a constitutional principle that allocates power within
government is illustrated, in an analogouscontext, by cases in which
individuals sustain discrete, justiciable injury from actions that
transgress separation of-powers limitations. Separation-of-powers
principles are intended, in part, to protect each branch of
government from incursion by the others. Yet the dynamic between and
among the branches is not the only object of the Constitution’s
concern. The structural principles secured bythe separation of powers
protect the individual as well.
In
the precedents of this Court,
the claims of individuals—not
of Government departments—have been the principal source of
judicial decisions concerning separationof powers and checks and
balances. For example, the requirement that a bill enacted by
Congress be presented to the President for signature before it can
become law gives the President a check over Congress’ exercise of
legislative power. See U. S. Const., Art. I, §7.
Yet individuals, too, are protected by the operations of separation
of powers and checks and balances; and they are not disabled from
relying on those principles in otherwise justiciable cases and
controversies.
................
If
the constitutional structure of our Government that protects
individual liberty is compromised, individuals who suffer otherwise
justiciable injury may object.
Just
as it is appropriate for an individual, in a proper case, to invoke
separation-of-powers or checks-andbalances constraints, so too may a
litigant, in a proper case, challenge a law as enacted in
contravention of constitutional principles of federalism. That claim
need not depend on the vicarious assertion of a State’s
constitutional interests, even if a State’s constitutional
interests are also implicated.
In
this regard it is necessary to address a misconceptionin the position
the Government now urges this Court to adopt. As
noted, the Government agrees that petitioner has standing to
challenge the validity of §229. That concession, however, depends on
describing petitioner’s claimin a narrow way. The
Government contends petitioner asserts only that Congress could not
enact the challenged statute under its enumerated powers. Were she to
argue, the Government insists, that the statute “interferes with a
specific aspect of state sovereignty,” either instead of or in
addition to her enumerated powers contention, the Court should deny
her standing.
Brief
for United States 18 (filedDec. 3, 2010).The
premise that petitioner does or should avoid making an
“interference-with-sovereignty” argument is flawed. Id.,
at 33. Here she asserts, for example, that the conduct with which she
is charged is “local in nature” and “should be left to local
authorities to prosecute” and that congressional regulation of that
conduct “signals a massive and unjustifiable expansion of federal
law enforcement intostate-regulated domain.” Record in No.
2:07–cr–00528– JG–1 (ED Pa.), Doc. 27, pp. 6, 19.
The
public policy of theCommonwealth of Pennsylvania, enacted in its
capacity assovereign, has been displaced by that of the
NationalGovernment. The law to which petitioner is subject, the
prosecution she seeks to counter, and the punishment she must face
might not have come about if the matter were left for the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to decide.Indeed, petitioner argues that
under Pennsylvania law the expected maximum term of imprisonment she
could havereceived for the same conduct was barely more than a third
of her federal sentence.
There
is no basis to support the Government’s proposed distinction
between different federalism arguments for purposes of prudential
standing rules. The
principles of limited national powers and state sovereignty are
intertwined. While neither originates in the Tenth Amendment, both
are expressed by it.
Impermissible interference with state sovereignty is not within the
enumerated powers of the National Government,
see
New
York,
505
U.
S., at 155–159, and action that exceeds the National Government’s
enumerated powers undermines the sovereign interests of States. See
United
States v.
Lopez,
514
U.
S. 549, 564 (1995). The unconstitutional action can cause concomitant
injury to persons in individual cases.
An
individual who challenges federal action on these grounds is, of
course, subject to the Article III requirements, as well as
prudential rules, applicable to all litigants and claims. Individuals
have “no standing to complain simply that their Government is
violating the law.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U. S. 737, 755 (1984). It
is not enough that a litigant “suffers in some indefinite way in
common with people generally.” Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U. S.
447, 488 (1923) (decided with Massachusetts v. Mellon). If, in
connection with the claim being asserted, a litigant who commences
suit fails to show actual or imminent harm that is concrete and
particular, fairly traceableto the conduct complained of, and likely
to be redressed bya favorable decision, the Federal Judiciary cannot
hear the claim. Lujan, 504 U. S., at 560–561. These requirements
must be satisfied before an individual may assert a constitutional
claim; and in some instances, the result may be that a State is the
only entity capable of demonstrating the requisite injury.
In
this case, however, where the litigant is a party to anotherwise
justiciable case or controversy, she is not forbidden to object that
her injury results from disregard of the federal structure of our
Government. Whether the Tenth Amendment is regarded as simply a
“‘truism,’” New
York,
supra,
at 156 (quoting United
States v.
Darby,
312 U. S. 100, 124 (1941)), or whether it has independent force of
its own, the result here is the same.
*
* * There is no basis in precedent or principle to deny petitioner’s
standing to raise her claims. The ultimate issue of the statute’s
validity turns in part on whether the law can be deemed “necessary
and proper for carrying into Execution” the President’s Article
II, §2 Treaty Power, see U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 18. This
Court expresses no view on the merits of that argument. It can be
addressed by the Court of Appeals on remand.The judgment of the Court
of Appeals is reversed, andthe case is remanded for further
proceedings consistentwith this opinion. It is so ordered.
.......................
JUSTICE
GINSBURG, with whom JUSTICE BREYER joins,concurring.
I
join the Court’s opinion and write separately to makethe following
observation.
Bond, like
any other defendant, has a personal right not to be convicted under a
constitutionally invalid law.
.....................
In
this case, Bond argues that the statute under which she was charged,
18 U. S. C. §229, exceeds Congress’ enumerated powers and violates
the Tenth Amendment. Other defendants might assert that a law exceeds
Congress’ power because it violates the Ex Post Facto Clause, or
the Establishment Clause, or the Due Process Clause.
Whatever
the claim, success on the merits would require reversal of the
conviction. “An offence created by [an unconstitutional law],”
the Court has held, “is not a crime.” Ex
parte Siebold,
100 U. S. 371, 376 (1880). “A conviction under [such a law] is not
merely erroneous, but is illegal and void, and cannot be a legal
cause of imprisonment.” Id.,
at 376–377. If a law is invalid as applied to the criminal
defendant’s conduct, the defendant is entitled to go free.
For
this reason, a court has no “prudential” license to decline to
consider whether the statute under which the defendant has been
charged lacks constitutional application to her conduct. And that is
so even where the constitutional provision that would render the
conviction void is directed at protecting a party not before the
Court. Our decisions concerning criminal laws infected with
discrimination are illustrative. The Court must entertain the
objection—and reverse the conviction—even if the right to equal
treatment resides in someone other than the defendant.
.......
In
short, a law “beyond the power of Congress,” for any reason, is
“no law at all.” Nigro
v.
United
States,
276 U. S. 332, 341 (1928). The validity of Bond’s conviction
depends upon whether the Constitution permits Congress to enact§229.
Her claim that it does not must be considered and decided on the
merits.
...............
editor's
note: The 10th Amendment guarantees that the states and citizens hold
the rights listed in the Bill of Rights, which are all the rights not
given to the federal government...remember, the states formed the
federal government to protect their rights, the federal government
DID NOT FORM THE STATES, they already existed and had claims to their
sovereignty that they wanted protected.
Note from Lee: Federalism is a much more complicated concept than what this describes. But here are 3 important pieces:
1. The US Supreme Court sets a floor (or minimum
amount of protection) under the Bill of Rights (the first 10
Amendments to the US Constitution.) States can exceed them (for
example, Article I, Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution provides
more protection than the 4th Amendment; Article I, Section 8 more
than the First Amendments)
2. The Supremacy Clause in
the US Constitution means that where there is a 'positive conflict'
between federal law and state law, federal law trumps state law.
3. The federal government cannot 'commandeer' the
states by requiring the criminalization of certain acts.
Number 1
explains why no state can outlaw (or make criminal) an abortion
during the first or second trimester of pregnancy.
Number 3
explains why the OMPI/CSLE (const.) and Sensible Oregon (statutory)
proposals would not be subject to federal preemption. Number 2,
at least arguably, describes a potential problem with OCTA. Lee
Berger, Portland
…......................................
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)