State Sovereignty and the War on Drugs
02. Jun, 2009 
7 Comments
by RJ Harris
The federal government’s Constitutional authority to regulate drugs extends only so far as to prevent the movement of drugs across any state or federal border.
The war on drugs is not about drugs, it is about state sovereignty. Once the federal government gets us to concede the principle that the states cannot be trusted with their own sovereignty– to do what is right –then, on principle, the federal government will gain the ability to legislate other things against our sovereignty as well.
If we agree with the premise that Oklahoma cannot determine which drugs to allow its citizens to use and which ones not to let them use, then we have just conceded to allow the federal government to tell Oklahomans who they can and cannot marry, what they can and cannot eat, who they can and cannot associate with and so on.
I challenge you to re-read the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution wherein you will find that Oklahoma retained all sovereignty not delegated to the Congress through the Constitution.
While the federal government can control what goods enter the stream of interstate commerce, I do not agree that we Oklahoman’s should allow ourselves to be tricked into ceding one ounce of our liberty and sovereignty under the false premise that we cannot be trusted to regulate ourselves.
I would rather retain the right of our state to handle the drug issue, as well as other social issues, than accept on principle that we cannot regulate ourselves and that we therefore must accept other forms of social legislation from the federal government.
RJ Harris [send him email] is an entrepreneur, a law student, and a candidate for Congress in Oklahoma’s 4th Congressional District. Visit his website at www.rjharris2010.com.
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
I’ll up the ante on that one and suggest the federal government does NOT have the right to regulate the movement of drugs across state lines, except such matters as might be a levy or matters in furtherance of open trade.
This whole interstate “thing,” I think, is grossly misunderstood – even by those who would argue it has been overextended.
Look at Montana’s gun bill. They think, over there, that their bill can only be supportable if it restricts its application to guns manufactured in Montana which never leave Montana.
I don’t think so. I think Montana has every right to RECEIVE guns from outside sources as well, and without federal restraint.
Just because something crosses a state line does not make it a federal issue. First, one needs to inquire as to what things ABOUT interstate commerce further a NATIONAL purpose.
I seriously doubt the federal government was given the power to PROHIBIT Kansas from selling wheat to Oklahoma. Does anyone think Washington was empowered to prohibit Texans from selling their beef to New Mexico?
I don’t think so. I think “regulate” was intended to mean collect a levy and maintain open trade.
Maybe someone can cite something in the old writings that suggest they were given such powers, but the language in the Constitution does not convince me.
I could be wrong….
I have not spent a lot of time on this particular clause myself, but because of it’s importance, I’ve been trying to learn more about it lately.
There are people who seem to take the position that “regulate” commerce meant to “make commerce regular” that is, to make sure that states didn’t put up barriers to free trade amongst each other.
there are others who take the position that the federal government is authorized to make rules about commerce among the states (or the people in the states), but that the power is still very limited…it wouldn’t include rules on agriculture and manufacturing and definitely wouldn’t include the power to imprison americans for merely owning or possessing goods that politicians deem to be undesirable.
In my opinion, even most expansive interpretations of the clause would have no place for what we call the “war on drugs” today.
Here’s some good information on the commerce clause: http://www.constitution.org/col/02729_fed-usurp.htm and http://federalistblog.us/2006/08/busting_congress_interstate_commerce_myth.html
Looks like some interesting reading after a quick scan….thanks for posting those, Nick!
Overlaying Federal authority also seems to presume sovereignty is diminished by Federal entanglements like NAFTA/GATT and Federal submission to nation state status beneath international treaties and trade agreements. States,by effect, are thus viewed as being enjoined into waiving sovereignty as beneficiary to conditional Federal waiver to International Oganizations. Thus America is seen as a nation state bound to transcendent duties and obligations under international law. Right now,Federal govt. recognizes all American people as being 14th Ammendment people. Meaning the 10th Ammendment is abandoned. Original rights and contract was with a 10th Ammendment people. With no one occupying the 10th Ammendment and States vicariously subject to the Federal govt. contracts and agreements with governing bodies under international law, it makes the 10th Ammendment presumed dead. States being viewed without people,and consent of people to be purviewed under the 14th Ammendment collectively, empowers the Federal govt. to recognize it is the will of the people that Federal govt. prevail. Furthermore, Federal justification is tied to invoked war powers which each administration extends into perpetuity. Thus war on drugs,war on crime,war on poverty,etc., are a war until bonafide war materializes like war on terrorism. Meaning there never truly is a time of peace. It too, along with Patriot Act is what elevates Federal govt. over States. Repopulating the abandoned 10th Ammendment position of law and standing helps reinvigorate States rights by evidencing will of people to support the States in their opposition. End result is Federal govt. doesn’t have right or standing to represent the people and States in any international capacity. Whatever besets the Federal govt. internationally,it stands alone. Many consider only Congress can legislate rights of people. What Congress actually is limited to legislate is law,outside of State law,and the RIGHTS OF 14TH AMMENDMENT PEOPLE where ever they reside. Ballot box/election reforms never change the 14th Ammendment scope and purview. Bottom line, until we
learn how to shake off the 14th Ammendment Federal overlay, State power is really undefended.
Where does the rubber hit the road in these legal cases? Scholars can have any opinion they find correct, but ultimately the only opinion of any legal importance is the court that hears a case involving these points.
Would this ever be a state court? I'm pretty sure I can imagine how a Federal Court would see the interpretation…