The convention of states provision in the constitution can be activated.
The authority for prohibition of MJ would fall under Article 6, Section 2:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, ratified by the US, requires control of MJ cultivation. As a treaty to which the US is signatory, it is the supreme law of the land, on equal footing with the Constitution under A6/S2.
Yeah, what could possibly go wrong with that?
When Trump or anyone else talks about an “Obama judge” everyone with any common sense knows he is talking about a judge whom Obama nominated based on similar beliefs and who has made a ruling which is consistent with those beliefs. The media knows this to be true in that if a controversial decision is made by a federal judge they will often state that this judge was appointed by Bush or Clinton.
Its no mystery what Trump meant.
When Roberts blasts the idea of an “Obama judge” he is treating us like kindergarten students.
1 Like
Of course, any President CAN seize power, if he has the military and sufficient of the armed citizenry to allow him to. But would that be possible against the wishes of an armed citizenry? Would the military go along with him? All POTUS has done is verbally criticise aspects of various courts. He is a citizen, and has free speech under the constitution, Do you think his free speech and independence from the Judiciary and the legislature should be annulled. How then would he be any longer co-equal with those two branches?
Roberts is a hack anyway. Evidenced by his legal pretzeling with the Obamacare ruling and his justification for said pretzeling “elections have consequences.” Some of those justices have no business being on the bench to begin with. They’re supposed to be beyond politics, not basing their rulings on it. 
Oh for crying out loud, he specifically says “within a state’s borders” and you bring up an international treaty aiming to curb drug trafficking between different countries. Talk about being completely off the reservation.
Ar you now.
Trump the politician, made an accurate judgement of the facts, while the judge’s response was purely political in an effort to appease, in spite of the facts. These are crazy times “we” are in.
There are other conventions that deal with trafficking. The Single Convention obligates signatories to control drugs within their own borders.
Whatever his politics or judicial philosophy, Justice Roberts, like all of the other Supreme Court justices, is a superior human being to Trump, and therefore any remarks about him by Trump mean less than nothing.
1 Like
Sure it does. That’s why the UN doesn’t actually enforce it. Because those countries are “obligated” to police themselves. How’s that working out?
Also specifically concerning Marijuana, the only person to suggest enforcement was in Canada and even they admitted it wasn’t really worth enforcing where private use was concerned. Perhaps because the treaty wasn’t concerned about private citizens using illicit substances behind closed doors but traffickers moving illicit substances from one country to another? You think?
That’s the nature of international agreements. They’re not perfect, but more effective than nothing at all.
Yeah because we’re in the habit of getting into agreements with foreign countries who dictate what we can do within our borders and to our own people all the time. Isn’t that the norm for treaties? I mean why would they cover the country you engage in the treatise with? Who even does that? /sarcasm
That is quite normal for treaties.
More words.
The President’s check on the courts is his appointment power.
Congress’ check on the courts are their advise and consent, legislative, and impeachment powers.
Is this difficult to understand?
Oh…and no one is saying Trump has no right to criticize the courts.
Simply that the courts…and the people…have equal right to push back when they perceive the President’s criticism to be illogical, unwarranted, and/or dangerous.
2 Likes
Trump calls out judges and adds politics to it (by identifying the judge as being picked by Obama).
Roberts calls out Trump and says “It doesn’t matter who picked the judge, these judges should be viewed as being unbiased politically and performing their duty as sworn to do.”
Justice Roberts is correct.
In a battle of wits with Justice Roberts, Trump is an unarmed man.
1 Like
A treaty cannot overturn powers retained by the states nor meddle in the internal affairs of the states.
In 1947, in Amaya v. Standard Oil & Gas Co. , a federal appeals court found that "the treaty-making power does not extend ‘So far as to authorize what the constitution forbids.’"
In 1957, in Reid v. Covert , the Supreme Court clearly ruled that constitutional guarantees cannot be abolished by either treaty or statute, stating: "no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution."
The bottom line is, a treaty cannot make the Tenth Amendment null and void.
JWK
