Pubdate: Sun, 22 Jan 2012
Source: Gazette, The (Colorado Springs, CO)
Copyright: 2012 The Gazette
Contact: http://www.gazette.com/sections/opinion/submitletter/
Website: http://www.gazette.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/165
Author: John Suthers
Note: John Suthers is Colorado's 37th attorney general.

DESPITE STATE CONSTITUTION, MEDICAL MARIJUANA VIOLATES FEDERAL LAW

The Gazette's recent editorial (Jan. 13 - "Suthers should defend MMJ 
law") lecturing me on my responsibilities as Colorado Attorney 
General reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the rule of law in America.

As Colorado's Attorney General I take an oath to uphold the U.S. 
Constitution and the Colorado Constitution. As part of this job, I 
frequently urge upon the state and federal courts a particular 
interpretation of these constitutional documents. But the final word 
on the meaning of the U.S. Constitution is the U.S. Supreme Court and 
the final word on the meaning of the Colorado Constitution is the 
Colorado Supreme Court. In a dispute on whether federal laws trump 
state laws under the Supremacy Clause, the U.S. Supreme Court has the 
final say.

In Gonzales v. Raich, the U.S. Supreme Court held that even when 
marijuana is grown, distributed and consumed within a single state, 
it does affect interstate commerce and is therefore subject to 
federal regulation. While you or I may find this decision by a 
majority that included Justice Antonin Scalia to be "judicial 
activism," it is nonetheless the law of the land.

In Florida v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, scheduled 
to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in March, the federal 
government is citing Gonzales v. Raich and other similar cases to 
argue that the Commerce Clause allows it to require every American to 
buy health insurance or face an economic sanction.

My fellow attorneys general and I have successfully argued in a U.S. 
District Court and the in 11th Circuit Court of Appeals that one's 
failure to buy a particular product or service at the federal 
government's direction is economic inactivity (unlike growing and 
selling a crop) and therefore not subject to congressional regulation 
under the Commerce Clause.

We argue that if the federal government is able to regulate your 
economic decision making in such a manner, federalism is essentially dead.

Rather than having limited enumerated powers under Article I, Section 
8, the federal government would have largely unbridled power in all 
areas not addressed in the Bill of Rights.

But make no mistake about it: If the U.S. Supreme Court should 
determine that the individual health insurance mandate is a proper 
exercise of the commerce power by Congress, that will be the law of 
the land and Americans will be left to pursue political remedies as 
opposed to legal ones.

Such is the rule of law in America.

Because of the rule of law, until a change of policy by Congress, 
medical marijuana remains in violation of federal law. The state 
attorney general cannot change that.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom