United States Supreme Court Heresy

The Constitution is now broken.


"Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void."

"Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? ... If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime."
        --Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall   ca. 1803.

This document will show in a step by step manner that the Controlled Substances Act as it applies to marijuana is unconstitutional.  In order to understand why this is so, you must first understand  the rules by which laws are made.

Congress is allowed to make laws related to subjects which are specifically listed in the Constitution.  Outside of those subjects, Congress has no power and is not allowed to legislate.  Those other subjects are reserved for the states, or the people.  Those subjects are called the "enumerated powers" and they are listed in the Constitution.

Words have meaning, and any person with the ability to reason can read the words of a law created by Congress, and then compare them to the sections of the Constitution that grant Congress the power to make that law.  You do not need to be an attorney, you do not need to be a justice of the Supreme Court.  All you need is the ability to reason, and you can form your own opinion.
One of those Congressional powers is known as the "Commerce Clause", and it reads as follows:

"The Congress shall have Power ...To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."  


The words highlighted in bold are the ones that concern us.  It is from this power, and from a series of Supreme Court decisions stacked one upon the other like a house of cards, that Congress has unconstitutionally extended its reach into your pocket where you keep your marijuana.  It is quite clear from the above text that Congress has the Constitutional power to prevent marijuana from traveling between or "among" the states, but can they write a law that prevents its sale, manufacture, transportation or even possession everywhere within the territories of the US?  What  follows will answer that question.

 The Commerce Clause clearly does not state that The Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce everywhere within the United States as it sees fit.  It is intentionally less general than that.  There is a difference between "regulate commerce...among the several States" and "regulate commerce universally, anywhere, within the United States".  How can we find the limits of that distinction?  Fortunately, the Constitution itself provides an answer to that question.

Before we talk about marijuana prohibition, we must first look at alcohol prohibition.

The Constitution has been amended, from time to time, and Congress has then made new law according to the powers created by those amendments.

One particular amendment relates to alcohol--the eighteenth amendment.  Prior to the eighteenth amendment, various states had enacted bans upon alcohol within their own territories, but states cannot regulate commerce that enters from another state--alcohol was pouring across their borders from the wet states.  As we have seen above, only the US Congress may regulate interstate commerce--states may not do so.  This presented a big problem for the dry states, so Congress acted to help them.

In 1890 congress passed the Wilson Original Packages Act, in 1913 the Webb-Kenyon Act and in 1917 the Reed Amendment.  All of this legislation was intended to control the interstate commerce of the commodity alcohol, so that dry state policies were not undermined by interstate commerce from wet states.  There is no question that Congress has, and has always had, the power to regulate the interstate market for alcohol  At no point did Congress attempt to  legislate manufacture, sale or transportation alcohol within the states themselves.  (see http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/LIBRARY/studies/nc/nc2a.htm for a history of Alcohol prohibition)

After several attempts over a thirty year span, a proposed Constitutional amendment was passed in 1917 prohibiting "the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited."--from the eighteenth amendment.  One year after ratification by three-fourths of the states, this amendment went into effect universally prohibiting alcohol in all of the US and its territories.

It is beyond question that in 1917 Congress intended to outlaw alcohol everywhere within the territories of the United States.  Rather than go to all of the extreme trouble of amending the Constitution, why did they not simply write a law declaring intoxicating liquors to be "Schedule I Controlled Substances" thus placing alcohol within their control by label alone?  At that point, they could have made any law they wished to control alcohol any place they wished, couldn't they?  Anyone who has read this far should now be able to answer that question--they did not possess the Constitutional power to do so.  Two-thirds of the House, two-thirds of the Senate, and three-fourths of the legislatures of the several states made it clear through the amendment process that this power had not been within Congress' Constitutional authority until they enacted and ratified the eighteenth amendment.

It is absurd to contend that the Constitution would have been amended so as to grant Congress powers that were redundantly contained within it.  There is no choice then, but to conclude, that prior to the eighteenth amendment Congress did not have the power or authority to outlaw alcohol.  Since this is so, prior to the eighteenth amendment, the Constitutional power for Congress to universally extinguish the market for the commodity alcohol did not exist.  

This amendment established a Constitutional precedent and a Constitution-bound constraint on the interpretation of the Commerce Clause.  In order to extinguish the market on a commodity like alcohol universally, everywhere within the US, the Constitution must be amended.  No presidential order, no Congressional legislation nor any Supreme Court precedent can overcome this constraint because the Constitution is the supreme law of our land, and the eighteenth amendment is part of our Constitution.  

Like alcohol, Congress intended to outlaw marijuana universally within the territories of the United States.  By law, they branded it a "Schedule I controlled substance" and they created legislation preventing its manufacture, sale, transportation and even possession, everywhere within the lawful reach of the United States.  It is simply impossible to identify the relevant conduct surrounding the manufacture, transportation, sale or possession of marijuana that distinguishes it from the from the manufacture, transportation and sale of alcohol.  Constitutional precedent unquestionably prohibits Congress this power.  This was overwhelmingly decided by the House, the Senate, and three-fourths of the legislatures of the several states in 1920 when their combined efforts led to the prohibition of alcohol.  

How did this farce, this absurdity, this travesty come about?  Simple.  Rather than amend the Constitution as is required by our system of government, taking a great deal of effort and national consensus, they simply re-defined the meaning of the Constitutional words. No one voted, no legislatures debated, the Supreme Court simply decided that the Commerce Clause meant something different than what it says.  The Black Robes of the Supreme Court have decided that regulating "commerce...among the several states" can mean things which are not even commerce--like growing a plant on your window sill or possessing a joint in your pocket.  All they had to do was make up new meanings for the words "commerce" and "among" and suddenly, Congress' power was vastly increased.   "Commerce among the several states" and "possession anywhere within the United States" are completely different things.

If you don't find the above argument sufficiently convincing, consider the following thought experiment:  If Congress were to take it into their hearts to again impose Prohibition of alcohol, (ignoring, for the moment, the eighteenth and twenty first amendments) they could simply add intoxicating beverages to the list of Schedule I Controlled Substances.  Instantly, the manufacture, sale, transportation and even possession of alcohol would become a federal crime.  Alcohol is, after all, a substance with no medical applications and a high propensity for abuse, and there's certainly a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision--without a doubt congress could find plenty of witnesses to say so and they could ignore any witnesses that disagree.  As justice Stevens said:  " We have never required Congress to legislate with scientific exactitude." (GONZALES V. RAICH)

The argument as to whether alcohol could or would be placed into the CSA is irrelevant--the thought experiment of doing so demonstrates the Constitutionally impermissible scope of this law.   By an ordinary act of legislation, they have accomplished that which can only be attained by Constitutional amendment.  The fact that this act is Constitutionally impermissible is too plain to be contested.  
Of the justices, only Clarence Thomas has the character and wisdom to see past this arrogant idiocy:

"If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything--and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers....Thus neither the Commerce Clause, nor the Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress the power to regulate the respondent's conduct."  

This is from Justice Thomas' dissent in the Supreme Court case Gonzales v. Raich, the "Medical Marijuana" case:


At this point, you must ask yourself "why?".  "Why did congress make the law, why did the president sign it, and why does the Supreme Court continue to permit it?"  Why?  The answer will probably not surprise you.  

In the "medical marijuana" case Angel Raich petitioned for her inalienable right to relieve her medical suffering through consumption of marijuana, a method of her own choosing.  The federal government inserted itself between Angel and the relief of her suffering.   The United States Government, acting in support of the CSA and in opposition to Angel Raich and the Citizens of the state of California, submitted a legal brief in this case.  If you take the time to read that brief, posted on Angel's own website, you will find the following statements submitted by the US Government:

"...excepting drug activity for personal use or free distribution from the sweep of the CSA would discourage the consumption of lawful controlled substances..."

"In addition, local illicit drug use for purported medicinal purposes significantly affects the drug commerce subject to Congress's regulation by inducing the "medicinal" user to refrain from consuming lawful drugs."

Exactly what are these "lawful Controlled substances" and "lawful drugs"?  Could they perhaps be "medicines" produced by pharmaceutical companies?  So let me get this straight:  they're arguing that if people are allowed to use marijuana, they will use fewer "lawful drugs" and the profits of Drug Companies might suffer?  Are you kidding me?  It's right there, go to Angel's site and read it for yourself:


Angel Raich, a citizen,  was sold out by the Supreme Court in order to protect the profits of pharmaceutical companies.  "Commerce", the profits of the rich and well-connected, was placed ahead of the suffering of citizens.

The Ninth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

In their Majority Opinion, the six justices noted that Angel felt that imposing the CSA against her would, among other things, violate her ninth amendment rights.  Through the entirety of their opinion, they never again mention the ninth amendment.  Doesn't Angel and don't we, the Citizens, deserve to know why it is that our inalienable rights are being Denied and Disparaged?  Are we to understand that the power to relieve ones own suffering in a manner of ones own choosing is not a fundamental right? Surely one or two sentences telling us why this is so would not be too much trouble for the six concurring justices of the Supreme Court to assemble?  Surely the freedom to choose the means of relieving our own suffering without Government intrusion is among our inalienable rights?  The blackness of their robes is a reflection of the color of their hearts--that they would put the Commerce Clause, and thus the profits of pharmaceutical companies, ahead of the inalienable right of a citizen to relieve her own suffering is inexcusable.  They made this choice, and in their arrogance, they made no effort to explain.

In the majority opinion Justice Stevens wrote:

 Respondents also raise a substantive due process claim and seek to avail themselves of the medical necessity defense. These theories of relief were set forth in their complaint but were not reached by the Court of Appeals. We therefore do not address the question whether judicial relief is available to respondents on these alternative bases.

 So since the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals didn't talk about the ninth amendment, the Supreme Court won't either?  They turned their collective heads and looked the other way while drug company profits rolled right over Angel Raich's suffering.


The nine current justices of the Supreme Court do not posess the power to overule that which was set into the bedrock of our system of government by two-thirds of the house, two-thirds of the senate, and three-fourths of the legislatures of the several states--the extraordinary process of Constitutional Amendment.  It has been established that the universal prohibition of alcohol or any alcohol-like commodity which does not cross state lines is beyond the reach of Congress and is only accessable via amendment.  Simply redefining the current words contained within the Constitution to mean something completely new and different is plainly impermissible to our system of government.  It is nothing less than Orwellian.

The above Constitutional argument is correct, and it is beyond dispute.  Since it is wholly Constitutional in nature, it is Supreme;  It superceeds legislation of an ordinary nature, as in the CSA,  and Stare Decisis--Supreme Court precident--regardless of its nature.

Chief Justice John Marshall once wrote:

"The powers of the legislature are defined, and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction, between a government with limited and unlimited powers, is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed, are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act."

Or, by corollary, that an ordinary act my have the scope of a Constitutional power.

By enacting the CSA to include the whole of the United States within its sweep, Congress has broken with the clear meaning of the Constitution.  The intent of the Eighteenth Amendment is obvious and plain, and Congress has equaled the power of that amendment with an ordinary legislative act.  They have exceeded their Constitutional authority in a manner clearly repugnant to the Constitution.  The CSA, as written regarding marijuana, is void.

When those entrusted to safeguard our system of government fail in their duties, when the Supreme Court chooses to interpret the Constitution in a manner that is in opposition to the words it contains, when Congress legislates so as to benefit the wealthy and powerful rather than ordinary Citizens in need, then you will know that our wonderful country is traveling the road to Tyranny.