Marijuana, Nullification and Sanctuary
Cities
I
find it puzzling that many California cities and even the State of California
have decided they should provide sanctuary for illegal aliens. Journalists, politicians and political
activists have argued the legality of this particular issue; however, I
discovered on the inter-net, a December 19, 2016 article by Harold Pease, Ph D.
entitled: "California
Uses Nullification Doctrine to Protect IIlegals" to be a comprehensive and objective analysis of the Tenth Amendment as it
applies to Sanctuary Cities and the legalization of pot.
Quoting from a portion of this article: ". . . a state is exempted from federal law that
is not constitutionally based by two parts of the
Constitution: Article I, Section 8 and Amendment 10. The first,
known as the enumeration clause, lists the areas where Congress can make law.
Any extension of this list requires an Amendment to the
Constitution as all other power remains with the states. Amendment 10 clarifies
this relationship more firmly. 'The powers not delegated to the United States by
the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.' - So states can
refuse to obey federal law and should do so to keep the federal government from
absorbing the jurisdiction left to them, 'powers not delegated' to the federal
government. Remember our Founders created a system of dual governance between
the states and the federal government with neither being master or slave. "
Several States
have utilized the so-called "Nullification Doctrine" to legalize medical and
recreational marijuana. As Dr. Pease
points out: "The use of
marijuana, and the ID
Act are not within the scope of enumerated powers and thus belong to the
states . . .the fact still remains that without a new amendment to the
Constitution this issue remains a state issue. States' refusal to implement the
Real ID Act, passed in 2005, which established new federal standards for
state-issued drivers licenses, is a form of nullification as well."
Inter-state
commerce and banking laws are a part of the U.S.
Constitution which creates a problem to be considered by any city looking to
legalize the sale of pot.
The
selling of marijuana is now legal in 24 states and the District of Columbia but
70% of cannabis companies don't have a bank account. This results in a cash business in which any
city licensing a marijuana business would have to rely upon the honesty and integrity of the
business owner to pay taxes on actual sales.
Moreover, there could be large amounts of unreported cash on the
premises - an ideal situation for armed robbery.
Quoting again from
Dr. Pease's article: "Now California is using the doctrine of
nullification to defy federal law on immigration, as it rules itself a
sanctuary state. The problem is immigration is clearly
constitutionally left to the federal government alone. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 gives the federal government
the right, 'To establish an uniform Rule at Naturalization." It has and
thus states cannot defy it. Moreover,
eight of the 18 clauses listed as the powers of Congress deal with national
security and border security defines even the existence of a nation. The
Constitution puts an end to the issue in Article 6: 'This Constitution, and the Laws of
the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereat ... shall be the
supreme Law at the Land; and the judges in every State shall be bound
thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws at any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.'"
My final comment is that every elected official has taken a
solemn oath "to preserve, protect
and defend the Constitution of the United States." The fact that creating a sanctuary city is
a clear violation of the
U.S. Constitution, one has to wonder what legal ramifications result from what appears to
be deliberate contravention of constitutional law.
Clearly, those
elected officials who have promoted and voted for the creation of a Sanctuary
City are in violation of their sworn oath of office. Possibly, those same officials can be termed
"accessories" if they know a felony to have been
committed by someone under the protection of their sanctuary which aids the
felon in avoiding punishment.
One can only
speculate on the legal status of a Governor of a Sanctuary State.