Message:
A+
Content:
B-
Showmanship:
A++
I'm a huge literary geek so I have to point out the countless misused words and portions that show signs of plagiarism as they do not fit with the literary style of the rest of the speech.
That aside, this kind of social protest is going to become rampant (or so I hope). It's really the only way we'll ever get action from the federal government.
Which reminds me that he forgot to bring up the Tenth Amendment.
The Tenth Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Wikipedia entry on the 10th Amendment
Oh you silly states you can legalize marihuana but we, the federal gov't, (dis)respectfully retain the right to call it illegal.
Here's the problem: The 10th Amendment seems to pretty clearly say that, unless otherwise delegated by the Constitution, all power resides with the states. Let's say a state declares cannabis legal (California anyone?). The federal government has no Constitutional power to contradict this state law.
So how do they get away with it?
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=+1]The Commerce Clause[/SIZE][/FONT]
The Congress shall have Power...To regulate Commerce with Foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.
Congress and the Courts have used this little sucker to declare that
Sally MMJ Grower, who obviously only grows for her personal use, could affect interstate commerce. Her crippled ass is going to sell her crop to citizens in other states and provide a legal source to an otherwise illegal substance in that state. Let's be clear, she didn't
actually do this...but you know, she
could. So we'll throw her in prison.
FOR GREAT JUSTICE.
If you think the above example sounds like fiction, here's another Wikipedia link for you:
Gonzales v. Raich
Our Supreme Court upheld charges against a California medical maríjuana patient based on the assumption that it is possible she could sell her medicine to parties in states where it is illegal.
Did she? Of course not, but that doesn't matter - the Court had political reasons to uphold the Federal Government's illegal basis for the War on Drugs. They wouldn't want to look silly now, would they?
