Skip to main content

View Diary: 19 Is The New 420 (285 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I forgot to address your points and quote. (0+ / 0-)

    Hi Smiley, I also want to address your point that many of the founders of this country wear hempsters for sure and would be pissed off that marijuana is now prohibited. This is true, but it has nothing to do with the Constitution. If they wanted to put protections for hemp in the Constitution they could have, but they didn't and it would have been weird if they did, because that's not the type of thing that the Constitution deals with.

    The quote from Justice Brandeis is from his dissent in a case dealing with whether wiretapping without a warrant is a violation of the 4th Amendment. First of all, a dissent is not the law, only the majority opinion is. However, Brandeis' views eventually got adopted by the majority of the court and it is now well established that the 4th Amendment covers wiretapping.

    What Brandeis is saying and I agree with wholeheartedly is that the Constitution doesn't foresee the future and so when the 4th amendment passed and protected people's papers and houses from warrantless searches, the spirit of that should apply to telephonic information (and for that matter emails today) which hadn't even been invented at the time and would probably have been included if it had been invented.

    This has nothing to do with the prohibition of marijuana. It doesn't apply at all because there is nothing in the Constitution that even remotely protects against the prohibition on marijuana. The closest argument you could make would be based on the 21st amendment which repealed prohibition of alcohol. But this is not nearly close enough and I'm positive that Justice Brandeis would not have agreed that the repeal of prohibition of alcohol should be interpreted as saying that you can't prohibit other substances such as marijuana. So the Brandeis quote just doesn't apply to your argument that marijuana prohibition is unconstitutional. It just isn't. It's bogus, unjust, and un-American, but it's perfectly constitutional.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site