MR. GIBBONS V. THE CONSTITUTION

Favors Federal Police State Over States' Rights in Medical Pot
Vote

The Ninth and 10th amendments to the Constitution -- forming the
capstones to the Bill of Rights -- are clear.

The founders were concerned that those seeking to limit our freedoms
and expand government power might some day argue the rights itemized
in the first eight amendments are our only rights. It was to nip such
pernicious nonsense in the bud that the founders ratified the Ninth
Amendment, which declares, "The enumeration in the Constitution of
certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others
retained by the people."

What might be some examples of such "retained rights"? Well, the
people have a right to travel about freely, for example. No government
in America had ever attempted to regulate free travel prior to 1787.
So that's a "retained right" -- even though it wasn't specifically
named or "enumerated" in the first eight amendments.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution lists the powers of Congress.
The federal government can coin money and establish post offices; it
can declare war and set up federal courts; it can establish a Navy and
buy land for dockyards. But nowhere is it granted any power to
restrict medical practice, or the possession or use of medicinal plants.

Last Wednesday, the House of Representatives voted on a measure which
would have barred the federal government from interfering with states
that allow people to use marijuana on the recommendation of a physician.

The idea was to honor the popular will in states such as Nevada and
California, where the voters have gone to the polls, overwhelmingly
and repeatedly authorizing the use of medical marijuana on the advice
of a physician.

Both Reps. Jon Porter, R-Nev., and Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., stood by
their constituents Wednesday, and voted to tell the federal narcs to
butt out. The effort failed, 268-148.

What was appalling, on the other hand, was to see Nevada's third
representative -- supposed conservative and constitutionalist Jim
Gibbons -- rise to vote against his own constituents, against common
sense, against medical compassion and against the Constitution.

Although he "supports states' rights," Rep. Gibbons declared, "the
regulation of narcotics and other drugs falls under the authority of
the federal government. It is a matter of public safety and public
health."

Go back and read Article I, Section 8. There's no authorization for
the federal government to concern itself with "public health and
safety" -- which is why your police department, your fire department,
and your local Health Department are all county or municipal entities.

Rep. Gibbons has surprised and shocked many Nevadans. Can it really be
he's no constitutionalist at all -- that he's really just in favor of
the federal bullies going anywhere they want, doing anything they
want, regardless of how they trample the rights of the states and the
expressed will of the people?

What other extraconstitutional powers would he bestow on our brand new
federal police forces under this ginned-up rubric of "public health
and safety"? We hesitate even to ask.