Vermont Completey Nullifies Federal Government Hemp ban

[The2ndAmendment]

10th Amendment Victory!

Vermont Completely Nullifies Federal Hemp Ban | Ben Swann

 

[Moonglow]

Hazzah! for liberty and freedom!

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I do love the state of Vermont, but I'd be more impressed if they actually legalized weed, rather than just hemp.

 

[Black_Label]

I do love the state of Vermont, but I'd be more impressed if they actually legalized weed, rather than just hemp.

I agree, but it's a big step in the right direction.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I own a house in Vermont, waiting for when I decide to retire, or when I get a job at Dartmouth.

I imagine by the time either of those things happen, Vermont will have legalized weed entirely.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

10th Amendment Victory!

Vermont Completely Nullifies Federal Hemp Ban | Ben Swann

Ignorant nonsense.

Congress’ power to regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic “class of activities” that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce is firmly established. See, e.g., Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146, 151. If Congress decides that the “ ‘total incidence’ ” of a practice poses a threat to a national market, it may regulate the entire class. See, e.g., id., at 154—155. Of particular relevance here is Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 127—128, where, in rejecting the appellee farmer’s contention that Congress’ admitted power to regulate the production of wheat for commerce did not authorize federal regulation of wheat production intended wholly for the appellee’s own consumption, the Court established that Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself “commercial,” i.e., not produced for sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity. The similarities between this case and Wickard are striking. In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress’ commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity.

GONZALES V. RAICH

Consequently, Federal authorities may arrest and prosecute any resident of Vermont for possession of marijuana pursuant to any relevant laws prohibiting the drug’s possession or use.

Nothing has been ‘nullified,’ and this issue has nothing to do with the Tenth Amendment.

 

[editec]

10th Amendment Victory!

Vermont Completely Nullifies Federal Hemp Ban | Ben Swann

Ignorant nonsense.

Congress’ power to regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic “class of activities” that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce is firmly established. See, e.g., Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146, 151. If Congress decides that the “ ‘total incidence’ ” of a practice poses a threat to a national market, it may regulate the entire class. See, e.g., id., at 154—155. Of particular relevance here is Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 127—128, where, in rejecting the appellee farmer’s contention that Congress’ admitted power to regulate the production of wheat for commerce did not authorize federal regulation of wheat production intended wholly for the appellee’s own consumption, the Court established that Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself “commercial,” i.e., not produced for sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity. The similarities between this case and Wickard are striking. In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress’ commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity.

GONZALES V. RAICH

Consequently, Federal authorities may arrest and prosecute any resident of Vermont for possession of marijuana pursuant to any relevant laws prohibiting the drug’s possession or use.

Nothing has been ‘nullified,’ and this issue has nothing to do with the Tenth Amendment.

Legally you are correct...the fEDS can step in a bust whomsoever breaks their laws.

But DE FACTO the FEDS depend on State and local governments to bust all but the most egregious and massive marijuana growers.

If the STATES won't back up the FEDS, the FEDS have little choice but to ignore the "crimes".

No law that cannot be enforced IS a law according to legal theory.

 

[Ernie S.]

I do love the state of Vermont, but I'd be more impressed if they actually legalized weed, rather than just hemp.

I agree, but it's a big step in the right direction.

Vermonters are mostly stoners any way.

I see you're back posting. How much was the bail?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

10th Amendment Victory!

Vermont Completely Nullifies Federal Hemp Ban | Ben Swann

Ignorant nonsense.

Congress’ power to regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic “class of activities” that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce is firmly established. See, e.g., Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146, 151. If Congress decides that the “ ‘total incidence’ ” of a practice poses a threat to a national market, it may regulate the entire class. See, e.g., id., at 154—155. Of particular relevance here is Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 127—128, where, in rejecting the appellee farmer’s contention that Congress’ admitted power to regulate the production of wheat for commerce did not authorize federal regulation of wheat production intended wholly for the appellee’s own consumption, the Court established that Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself “commercial,” i.e., not produced for sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity. The similarities between this case and Wickard are striking. In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress’ commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity.

GONZALES V. RAICH

Consequently, Federal authorities may arrest and prosecute any resident of Vermont for possession of marijuana pursuant to any relevant laws prohibiting the drug’s possession or use.

Nothing has been ‘nullified,’ and this issue has nothing to do with the Tenth Amendment.

Yea. You're talking about the supposed interstate commerce clause that the Supreme Court completely made up. You know; the clause that is found nowhere in the Constitution?

 

[Snouter]

Cops and court system in Vermont are filled with faggotry. The illusion it is a land of liberty is a delusion.

 

[NightFox]

Yea. You're talking about the supposed interstate commerce clause that the Supreme Court completely made up. You know; the clause that is found nowhere in the Constitution?

Actually it does it exist:

Article I, Section 8

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

However the original intent of this as applied to "the several States" was to allow Congress to prevent the states from erecting trade barriers between each other, in other words to maintain a "free trade zone" within the boundaries of the United States. Unfortunately it's been so perverted since the ratification that it's pretty much meaningless now.

 

[eflatminor]

Wickard v. Filburn

Worst SC ruling in history in my opinion.