THE SUPREME COURT GAVEL BANGS

The Next Nail In The Coffin Of State's Rights

Like socks with sandals, the band of brothers Hanson and Mac OSX
before him, we at YES! Weekly are starting to warm up to Supreme
Court Justice Clarence Thomas. After the Court's 6-3 vote last Monday
that made the use of medicinal marijuana a crime against US law,
Thomas penned a dissenting opinion piece that questioned the actions
of both Congress and the Court which will probably be alluded to for
years to come in the literature put out by the National Association
for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

Our man Thomas writes: "By holding that Congress may regulate
activity that is neither interstate nor commerce under the Interstate
Commerce Clause, the Court abandons any attempt to enforce the
Constitution's limits on federal power. In the early days of the
Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit
the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana."

He's not talking about potheads here, but patients who have been
prescribed the cannaboid by doctors for alleviation of pain or
appetite inducement for maladies ranging from cancer to back trouble.
And he's talking specifically about backyard weed, grown by the users
and which is never intended for commerce, interstate or otherwise.

And while there are all sorts of fun reasons to get behind Justice
Thomas on this issue, there is also a more serious note to these
proceedings, namely the principle of states' rights. The federal law
supercedes any state law, making criminals overnight of those who
have been medicating themselves with the leaf under a doctor's orders.

Twenty percent of the states -- Alaska, Arizona, California,
Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and
Washington -- allow salubrious tokes for their people. So the
marijuana decision will not immediately affect the state of North
Carolina, where any type of pot, medicinal or otherwise, is
absolutely illegal. But we would be wise to beware the slippery slope.

Thomas writes: "Congress cannot define the scope of its own power
merely by declaring the necessity of its enactments. Here, Congress
has encroached on States' traditional police powers to define the
criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens."

States' rights are considered sacred, especially here in the South
where a mandate from Washington, DC caused a mighty uproar about 150
years ago. But in the years since 9-11, these rights are diminishing
as the federal government's role gains power with every congressional
session. It is exactly what our founding fathers didn't want for this nation.

Thomas closes with this: "Our federalist system, properly understood,
allows California and a growing number of other States to decide for
themselves how to safeguard the health and welfare of their citizens.
I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. I respectfully dissent."

Right on, brother.