Cannabis Study House - ＵＳＡ・ヘンプ・ミュージアム、ヘンプと法律、ヘンプとアメリカ憲法

ヘンプとアメリカ憲法


PUNISHMENT MUST FIT CRIME IN U.S. SEIZURES. "...a unanimous court ruled that the Eighth Amendment - banning excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishment - applies to all forfeiture cases."

Here are a couple of rulings in California CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, I found in the UCLA Law Library:(5) [&469] Possession of Marijuana (and Privacy).

In National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws v. Gain (1979)
100 C.A.3d 586, 161 C.R. 181, individual taxpayers and an organization brought an action against local law enforcement officials and the district attorney, attacking sections of the Health and Safety Code that prohibit the private possession and use of marijuana by adults. Following the approach in Privitera (supra, &467), the court declared that the California constitutional right of privacy "does not guarantee adult Californians the privilege of smoking a possibly harmful drug, even in the privacy of their homes." (100 C.A.3d 593.)

The ruling cited above as precedent from CA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW:

(3) [&467] Drug Efficacy Requirement (and Privacy).

In People v. Privitera (1979) 23 C.3d 697, 153 C.R. 431, 591 P.2d 919, defendants were convicted of the felony of conspiracy to sell and prescribe the unapproved drug laetrile for the alleviation or cure of cancer. Held, freedom to obtain drugs of unproven efficacy (prohibited by statutes and administrative regulations) is not within the right of privacy guaranteed by the federal or California Constitutions. The United States Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade (supra, &436) and Whalen v. Roe (supra, &443) recognized that certification of a drug's efficacy is a reasonable means to insure health and safety, and that the"important decisions" falling within the right of privacy do not includemedical treatment. (23 C.3d 702, 703,709.) (See 25 UCLA L. Rev. 577[The Drug Efficacy Requirement and the Right of Privacy]; 13 LoyolaL.A. L. Rev. 227 [Privitera]; 5 A.L.R.4th 219 [same]; 13 SouthwesternL. Rev. 531 [A Constitutional Analysis of Federal Drug MarketingRegulations and Food and Drug Administration Implementation]; 39Stanf. L. Rev. 1453 [employee drug-testing legislation].)

CURATOR'S NOTE: What we have in the above ruling is the CA Court citing the federal right of privacy, that "important decisions" falling within the right of privacy do not include medical treatment. There is no federal Constitutional right to privacy per se, while California has an enumerated inalienable and fundamental right to privacy which must be subjected to the strictest interpretation by the court, therefore "important decisions" including medical treatment of the citizen's body, ought not to be based on federal law, but the stronger right of the people of California to privacy AS IS THE CASE IN THE STATE OF ALASKA. (See Alaska)

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 1
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS, SECTION 1

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienablerights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

CA CODE CIVIL CODE SECTION 1798.1

The Legislature declares that the right to privacy is a personal and fundamental right protected by Section 1 of Article 1 of the Constitution of California and by the United States Constitution.

May 16, 2000. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today in a 5-4 decision that Congress overstepped it authority in allowing rape victims to sue. What was interesting here is that the Court refused to allow Congress free reign in the name of "interstate commerce." The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 is unconstitutional, "Because the federal government has no right to regulate a private act, such as rape, that is neither part of interstate commerce nor caused by state officials."

This 1912 magazine was printed the year of the Harrison Narcotics Act, which rightly did not include non-narcotic hemp products. This act upheld the State's rights to determine drug policy. Hemp Museum framed magazine cover.

RE
High Court Ruling
Congress overstepped it authority.

LETTER SUBMITTED TO THE LOS ANGELES TIMES
MAY 16, 2000.

The U.S. Supreme Court took a big step toward overturning the war on drugs today when the Court declared, "...the federal government has no right to regulate a private act, such as rape (the same reasoning applies to smoking a joint for my own private use), that is neither part of interstate commerce (I grew it in my own back yard) nor caused by state officials." Congress has no power over "non-economic, violent criminal conduct" that does not cross state lines, said Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist.

"The Constitution requires a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local." What does this say about Prop. 215 and its non-economic, non-violent, non-criminal conduct? California lawmakers ought to be ashamed for not knowing the national versus local distinction. They should pass hemp farming laws, medical freedom laws, and private use of pot laws immediately. Before the people have to again take the initiative. It's their job.

Richard M. Davis,
U. S. A. HEMP MUSEUM Curator

We shall see how the conservative court ruled when confronted with the federally mandated "war on some drugs." Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said, "The restoration of federalism scrutiny in our federal courts is a welcome development in the law. The Constitution reserves to the states the 'ordinary administration of criminal and civil justice,'" he said, quoting Alexander Hamilton. U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist echoed the words of Hamilton when he said, "the Founders denied the National government and reposed in the States...the suppression of violent crime and vindication of its victims."

Stamps helped end the first prohibition.

Also under this section of rulings of law, see U.S. V. BUTLER, 297, U.S. I, 1936, Plus Commentary. A quote from Butler from the Supreme Court of the U.S.:

"The act invades the reserved rights of the states. It is a statutory plan to regulate and control agricultural production, a matter beyond the powers delegated to the federal government. "

http://hempmuseum.org/
Un-Copyright 2003 USA HEMP MUSEUM. SPREAD THE WORD All rights NOT reserved

▲