Hi Starchild,
I'm glad you "completely agree with [me] about drug prohibition not
being authorized by the Constitution."
As for your making that point in the sentence I quoted, I thought you
had done that obliquely. So I wanted to clarify the point by referring
to the 18th Amendment and asking those seeming rhetorical questions.
Other than asking those questions, I don't think I had anything else
specific to ask you.
As for what I was trying to say, well, by presenting the 18th Amendment,
I wanted to expound on related matters concerning the Constitution. For
example, I quoted what Chief Justice John Marshall said in Marbury v.
Madison, as he told Congress that they can't write laws that conflict
with the Constitution, the "Supreme Law of the Land." By doing this,
Marshall established the doctrine of "judicial review" in American law,
which meant the Courts had final say about a law's constitutionality.
"What would be the point of having a Constitution if laws could be
written that routinely violate it," was his thinking.
I went on to say that laws are written to not violate the letter of the
Constitution, though the laws are usually unconstitutionally enforced.
An example I like to now give is how legislators use the word "shall" in
statutes. For most people, "shall" means "must." In American
jurisprudence, however, "shall" means "may," especially if the
constitutionality of a statute is at stake if "shall" were to mean
"must."
You probably know you "must" register for the draft, though no one has
been drafted for military service in almost 40 years. You might
reasonably assume that the draft law says "all males must register for
the draft," or "all males are required to register for the draft," or
some such wording.
And once you're "required" to register, you might reasonably assume the
law says, "once registered, these males must (or "are required to")
train for military service in the Armed Forces," or some such wording.
Here is what the actual law says about the "requirement" to train for
military service:
United States Code TITLE 50, APPENDIX
"§ 454. Persons liable for training and service
"(a) Age limits; training in National Security Training Corps; physical
and mental fitness; adequate training facilities; assignment to stations
and units; training period; medical specialist categories
"Except as otherwise provided in this title every person required to
register pursuant to section 3 of this title [section 453 of this
Appendix] who is between the ages of eighteen years and six months and
twenty-six years . . . shall be liable for training and service in the
Armed Forces of the United States: [my emphases]. "
It would seem § 454, with wording such as "required to," and "shall
be liable," mandates "training and service in the Armed Forces of the
United States." Notice that this seeming mandate applies to "every
person required to register pursuant to . . . [section 453 of this
Appendix]." Let's turn to Section 453 to see who these persons are:
TITLE 50, APPENDIX § 453
"§ 453. Registration
"(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title it shall be the duty of
every male citizen of the United States, and every other male person
residing in the United States, who . . . is between the ages of eighteen
and twenty-six . . . .to present himself for and submit to registration
. . .[my emphasis]."
Gee. Where § 454 referred to "every person required to register,"
§ 453 instead of saying something like "every male citizen are
required to register," it says "it shall be the duty of every male
citizen of the United States [to register]." What gives?
Recall what I said about "shall" must mean "may" if the
constitutionality of a statute is at stake should "shall" were to mean
"must." Look at § 454 again. Notice it didn't say every person
required to register "are liable for" or "must submit to" training and
service in the Armed Services. Instead, it said every person required to
register "shall be liable for training and service in the Armed Forces."
Why? Because "shall" here must mean "may." If it actually meant "must,"
then § 454 would conflict with the 13th Amendment's prohibition
against involuntary servitude. And by being applied only to males of a
certain age, if "shall" meant "must" then § 454 would conflict with
the 14th Amendment's clause for every persons' equal protection of the
laws.
This is also why "shall" in § 453 must mean "may."
As you can now see, Starchild, registering for the draft to train for
military service is statutorily a voluntary act. (While we currently
have an all-voluntary military, that's different from the draft laws
being voluntary.) Yet, despite this fact, the government is still
requiring young me to register. Arguably, it can make this requirement
if the man wants a federal job or a federal college loan or other
federal benefit. But can States require registration to have a driver's
license?
Since the government cannot constitutionally force young men to train
for military service, can it constitutionally require employers to be
unpaid Private Investigators by forcing them to verify whether their
employees are legally eligible to work? Can it constitutionally require
employers to be unpaid narcs by forcing them to test their employees for
"illegal drugs"? Can it constitutionally require shopkeepers to be
unpaid tax collectors by forcing them to collect sales taxes? In every
case, the answer is "no." And if you were to look at the actual statutes
that supposedly make these "requirements," I'll give you odds that they
will include "shall" in their wording.
I've spoken at some length. I should stop now.
I hope you found my exposition of "shall" interesting. Perhaps you might
find the facts I presented useful in challenging laws that "require" We
the People to be the government's serf or cat's paw.
As I previously said, the law and the Constitution are wonderful things.
We ignore their workings at our peril.
Talk to you.
Alton
Alton,
I completely agree with you about drug prohibition not being
authorized by the Constitution. That was the point of my sentence that
you quoted below. I'm not sure what you are trying to say or ask me.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
> Hi Starchild,
>
> Since my visit to your lovely City by the Bay, and from discussions
with you and your colleagues, I've come to realize that most denizens of
SF, invertebrates and otherwise, seem to march to that proverbial
different drummer, especially those denizens among the "ruling class."
>
> Still, I was taken by your statement:
>
> << Cannabis dispensaries have NEVER been in compliance with "federal
law" (i.e. the unconstitutional federal statutes masquerading as law).
>
> I could imagine why you would say that those federal statutes are
unconstitutional, but "an act of the legislature repugnant to the
constitution is void," as Chief Justice John Marshall famously said in
Marbury v. Madison. This means Congress can't write laws that violate
the constitution, "the Supreme Law of the Land," else they would be
invalid. So Congress usually tries to write laws that don't violate "the
letter" of the Constitution, yet the way the law is enforced is
unconstitutional.
>
> "Income Tax" laws are glaring examples. But that's a whole different
story.
>
> Anyhow, getting back to Cannibis, how and where did the government
get the power to prohibit and criminalize MJ? I mean, it needed a
Constitutional Amendment, the 18th, to get the power to prohibit and
criminalize the "manufacture, sale or transporting of intoxicating
liquors." I don't see Amendment XXVIII or any Amendment that gives the
government the power to prohibit and criminalize Cannibis, do you?
>
> Returning to the 18th Amendment, though it rode roughshod over and
wantonly violated people's rights for "victimless crimes" (though
Lysander Spooner will tell you there are no such things as "victimless
crimes," since a crime by his definition requires a victim), the
Amendment itself was often routinely ignored and subverted (to We the
People's benefit, I guess). The fear is that were a "Balanced Budget
Amendment" ever ratified, the government will routinely ignore and
subvert it, by bookkeeping legerdemain or simply "cooking the books."
>
> The law and the Constitution are wonderful things. We ignore them at
our peril.
>
> Alton
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Chris Roberts of SF Weekly reports that SF's city government
"reversed its decision today, saying all permits are on hold
indefinitely, according to Jim Soos, a spokesman with the city
Department of Public Health, until the city can 'receive assurance that
it is in compliance with state and federal law.'"
> >
> > Are they stupid, or do they think we are? Cannabis dispensaries
have NEVER been in compliance with "federal law" (i.e. the
unconstitutional federal statutes masquerading as law). Presuming they
have brains and haven't been living in caves, city officials have always
known this, but went ahead with their permitting program anyway.
> >
> > But now they are shocked, shocked, to find out they may be
"breaking the law", and are using the flimsy excuse of "waiting for more
clarity from the state" to refuse new dispensary permits (even though
the City Attorney already told them they could resume processing
permits).
> >
> > Here's some clarity for the unnamed DPH officials behind this
spineless move -- The more legal barriers you place in the path of
cannabis sales, the more you fuel the black market, and the more
violence and crime San Francisco will see as a result of your
Prohibitionist policies. If that's what you and your bosses at the
mayor's office and on the Board of Supervisors want, full speed ahead!
> >
> > Love & Liberty,
> > ((( starchild )))
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >> BREAKING: San Francisco Suspends Medical Marijuana Licensing
Program
> > >> Indefinitely
> > >>
> > >> By Chris Roberts
> > >>
> > >> Wed., Jan. 25 2012 at 4:17 PM
> > >>
> > >>
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2012/01/breaking_in_reversal_san_fra\
nc.php
> > >>
> > >> San Francisco city officials decided Wednesday afternoon to
indefinitely
> > >> suspend the city's medical marijuana dispensary permitting
program,
> > >> according to the Department of Public Health.
> > >>
> > >> Permits had been on hold since last fall, after a ruling in a
state appeals
> > >> court case halted similar permitting programs across
California. That case
> > >> was appealed to the Supreme Court, and during the appeal,
permits could
> > >> resume being processed, a spokesman for the City Attorney told
SF Weekly
> > >> last week. (
> > >>
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2012/01/medical_marijuana_dispensary\
.php
> > >> )
> > >>
> > >> But the city reversed its decision today, saying all permits
are on hold
> > >> indefinitely, according to Jim Soos, a spokesman with the city
Department
> > >> of Public Health, until the city can "receive assurance that it
is in
> > >> compliance with state and federal law." (
> > >> http://www.sfdph.org/dph/eh/MCD/default.asp)
> > >>
> > >> DPH staff made the decision to put all permits on hold in
consultation with
> > >> the City Attorney's Office, which provides legal advice to all
city
> > >> departments, he said.
> > >>
> > >> "We're waiting for more clarity from the state on our ability
to issue
> > >> permits," said Soos, who added that the federal Department of
Justice's
> > >> recent closure of five permitted dispensaries also weighed on
the city's
> > >> decision.
> > >>
> > >> A year ago, the city had 27 licensed dispensaries, with up to a
dozen more
> > >> applying for permits. Since then, five permitted San Francisco
dispensaries
> > >> have closed after receiving letters from Melinda Haag, the
United States
> > >> Attorney for the Northern District of California. The letters
informed the
> > >> dispensaries' landlords that they were in violation of federal
law, and
> > >> were subject to forfeiture of their property and up to 40 years
in prison
> > >> if the dispensaries didn't close.
> > >>
> > >> Jack Gillund, a spokesman for Haag, said the office had no
comment.
> > >>
> > >> San Francisco's medical cannabis dispensary program had been on
hold
> > >> following a state court of appeals ruling on Pack vs. the City
of Long
> > >> Beach. The court ruling said that a city issuing permits for
medical
> > >> marijuana by itself was a violation of federal law.
> > >>
> > >> The state Supreme Court said Wednesday it would hear an appeal
on the case.
> > >> During the appeal, permits could start being processed again,
the City
> > >> Attorney said last week. A spokesman for the City Attorney's
office said
> > >> earlier on Wednesday that that legal advice offered last week
has not
> > >> changed.
> > >>
> > >> It is not immediately clear what influenced the city's change
of heart.
> > >> Matt Dorsey, a spokesman for City Attorney Dennis Herrera, said
the office
> > >> could not offer further comment, citing attorney-client
privilege.
> > >>
> > >> Sources inside the medical marijuana community are speculating
that Haag's
> > >> office may have threatened San Francisco city officials with a
lawsuit, in
> > >> a manner similar to threats of a lawsuit issued to Mendocino
County over
> > >> its permitting process. That permitting process was canceled
Tuesday.
> > >>
> > >> It is also unclear who will issue legal advice to San Francisco
on its
> > >> ability to issue permits. In a letter sent to lawmakers last
year, Attorney
> > >> General Kamala D. Harris said that the Legislature must offer
more clarity
> > >> on what the state's medical marijuana laws allowed. A spokesman
for Harris
> > >> was not able to immediately comment Wednesday when contacted by
SF Weekly.
> > >>
> > >> Follow us on Twitter at @SFWeekly and @TheSnitchSF
> > >>
> > >>
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2012/01/breaking_in_reversal_san_fra\
nc.php