This issue is simpler than one may think. A state's decision (in this case, California) to allow possession of marijuana for medicinal purposes (the purpose is actually a nil-point) versus the statute of federal government that such an act (possession) is illegal. Well, we go to the Constitution, flip to the appendices, yes, Amendment 10... States have all rights not prescribed in the Constitution to the federal government. Oh I see. Case closed.

But don't take my word for it...

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Will a conservative Supreme Court, which has previously and illegally (Is it illegal if a judge does it?) handed the presidency to George W. Bush after the rightfully-contested stolen 2000 election was brought to their docket, refuse a states' right? Will they instead push for big government? Would they really consider trashing their legal opinions in order to appease the president? Or will they do their job and be a cog in the wheel of our system of checks and balances.

Labels: bush