I'm ready to launch one.
The claim originates from this Federal Code;
TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1983
Civil action for deprivation of rights
The creation of the drug laws was illegal - unconstitutional.
The supreme court had ruled that congress could NOT use the commerce clause to regulate PRODUCTION or MANUFACTURE of... ANYTHING.
This was mentioned again in U.S. v Lopez;
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. V Lopez
The Constitution creates a Federal Government of enumerated powers. See U.S. Const., Art. I, 8. As James Madison wrote, "[t]he powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." The Federalist No. 45, pp. 292-293 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). This constitutionally mandated division of authority "was adopted by the Framers to ensure protection of our fundamental liberties."
“...The commerce power "is the power to regulate; that is, to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed. This power, like all others vested in Congress, is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations, other than are prescribed in the constitution.”
“...When cases involving these laws first reached this Court, we imported from our negative Commerce Clause cases the approach that Congress could not regulate activities such as "production," "manufacturing," and "mining." See, e.g., United States v. E. C. Knight Co., 156 U.S. 1, 12 (1895) “
The drug laws violated these (there were more than one) supreme court rulings.
Strike one against congress, strike one against the drug laws.
The charges in drug crimes are for possessing private property.
Property RIGHTS are GOD GIVEN rights that are SUPERIOR to any government interaction.
All powers of government (in the USA) are derived from the rights of the people.
Can I legally prevent someone from selling their personal computer to you - if you want to buy it, they want to/are willing to sell it, and you agree upon a price?
Can I get a group of people - a few hundred of us - and PREVENT that transaction from taking place?
And assuming you make the deal, buy the computer - I can then take the computer FROM you, and hold both you and the seller because I WANT to?
Can I EVER LEGALLY deprive you of your rights - to own property and contract with it freely - which are granted to you BY GOD - by getting a larger group together and deciding to strip you of those rights?
The government has authority derived from our rights.
I cannot do this without the government - so I cannot GIFT this authority - AS A PRIVILEGE - to the government.
Strike two against congress...
Strike two against the drug laws...
If that isn't enough...
U.S. Code Title 18 Chapter 13 Section 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law...
This FEDERAL LAW prohibits the government or ANYONE acting under ANY law to deprive a citizen (or anyone) of their RIGHTS, privileges, etc... protected under the constitution.
This is great CRIMINALLY - but as citizens we cannot press criminal charges - only file formal complaints and wait for the authorities (who in this case ARE the criminals...) to arrest and punish themselves.
This is ridiculous.
Luckily there is another remedy;
TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1983
§ 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
Here is where I want to base my civil class action suit - with any currently or past incarcerated non-violent drug war VICTIM - political prisoners - silenced through incarceration - able to sign on to the suit.
I think the nation's ready for it.
We need to reclaim our GOD GIVEN rights - shake off the UNGODLY government that has taken those rights from us...
And reclaim our nation for the PEOPLE - the rulers of this nation.
Anyone have a legal resource to tap to begin this suit?
I'm ready to push it.
Hard.
I'm ready to testify.
And I'm ready to put my name on the thing to get it started.
Hook me up with someone willing to write it, and lets get going.
It's time to stop letting the aggressors run over the citizens they are sworn to protect.
It's time, in this war, to begin taking up arms of knowledge and piercing the armor of lies that the enemies of the United States have taken upon themselves.
It's time to stop WHINING about the war and FIGHT it.
I'm ready.
I'm able.
Someone please give me a clue where to start a class action suit.
Looking for the easiest way to join the anti-drug war movement? You've found it!
Contact info...
Just delete the spaces...
I Am @ Revolutioni.st
"One man with courage is a majority." - Thomas Jefferson.
the fullest extent
i've often said we need to approach it legislatively by simply adding a phrase like "this Clause shall not be construed to give Congress the power to proibit the possession or sale of any commodity". that should bring both unconstitutional Prohibition, as well as the equally unconstitutional gun control laws, crashing down overnight.
we know that the purpose of the commerce clause is to prevent states from enacting protectionist tariffs on goods from other states, thereby inhibiting competition and hurting both the economy and progress in general, and that the prohibitioist / gun grabbers' use of the clause constitutes just such an offense, but i'm afraid where we might lose is the clause's part about being able to be used "to the fullest extent", and doesn't contain any statements of puropose.
so, while they might not be able to regulate manufacture, they might be able to regulate possession and sale, even though doing so violates the "spirit" of the clause.
we might have an angle with the deprivation of rights, though, as individual drug use is clearly protected by the 9th amanement and states' rights by the 10th. the argument that "the Constitution doesn't guarantee the right to drug use" is a straw man, because people's rights aren't required to be enumerated, and indeed it is the government that lacks the enumerated right to outlaw it.
so the argument then went that "we cannot regulate the vice, but surely we can regulate the means by which a man minsters to that vice", and that's when they went for the commerce clause. BUT although the commerce clause doesn't say it cannot be used to ban things, if that ban impacts upon one's *ability* to minister to that vice which it is our Constitutional right to indulge, then the commerce loophole might be nullified as a deprivation under colour of law, which it certainly is.
everyone knew this then and still does, of course, this is why the doctors who told the truth about marijuana when they were hired to legitimise the state's lies were berated for "trying to prevent something that is for the good of the country"; the whole question is whether or not the public will cease to give its blessing to judicial actiivism on hot-button issues, ie: will they finally start respecting the law they claim to cherish even when it doesn't suit them.
hey, is there any way to subscribe to comments on these threads, or do we just have to keep checking back? i know a good drug lawyer in LA, but what we really need is a constitutional specialist i think.
Legal support for class action suit
Dear Kalash,
It looks like you have been doing some homework. I hope you are successful in your suit. I do think the supreme kangaroos will disregard it no matter how well presented and true to the law it is. Just looking at the case history and recent events as well as some of the latest appointments recently it will be an uphill battle. They tend to roll over like an obedient dog when it comes to supporting the governments position on drug policy. There appears to be even more blatant disregard for established precedent, anything goes in the drug war mentality with most of the new justices.
The ACLU or the Drug Policy Alliance might be willing to assist you with legal and financial support. Good luck..
Greg
Slim and None
Good luck with this. You are absolutely right.
However, given Raich, I'd say your chances are slim and none.
BTW Thank the maker for that uber right winger Clarence Thomas who can actually read the Constitution and understand it.
Did you read his dissent in Raich? Brilliant. And so simple to understand that an ordinary citizen could understand it.
Post new comment