For those who want to argue about politics...

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Your choice of the Marijuana tax stamp act is an interesting one, as it was originally pushed by moneyed industrial interests who sought to suppress the marijuana trade not on health or "political correctness" grounds (although it was portrayed as such by the legislators whom the industrialists had paid to support it), but because hemp was an inexpensive alternative to their products; newsprint and nylon, and threatened their continued profitability. Over time it morphed into a criminal act, and was ruled unconstitutional because anyone seeking a license to sell marijuana had to incriminate themselves in an attempt to get one. Congress eventually repealed and replaced it with the Controlled Substances Act, which directly illegalized marijuana.
In other words, it was not a renegade legislature than dreamed up the Act, it was the corrupting influence of private interests, exercising their "free speech" rights guaranteed them by the Bill of Rights, and perhaps as most recently reinforced in the Citizens United decision, which could arguably (and probably more correctly) be viewed as one fulfilling a political agenda.

While I suspect your view of the original marijuana prohibition to be based on economic reasons by big business has some basis in truth, virtually everything Ive read about the reasoning behind it was much different.

"A little history - Marijuana started to come into the United States in the 1920s along with Mexican immigrants. These immigrants grew marijuana which cause some concern among people in the vicinity of where they worked. This is why some of the first anti-marijuana laws, occurred in, places, such as Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Michigan.

 

In the early 1930s, when the Great Depression hit, people started to fear these Mexican immigrants to the point people actually tried to get them to go back to Mexico. Mexican immigrants were thought to be undercutting Americans for jobs, plus it was widely thought that these people were taking marijuana, into town on the weekends, and introducing the population to marijuana convincing people to try it. The average American in the 30's felt these drug users were the reason for many of the criminal problems in their cities. Even researchers, who were rational about most things thought marijuana use, was a very serious problem back then." - Marijuana Tax Stamps - Herbal Smoke Cafe'

"In addition, the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 legitimized the use of the term "marihuana" as a label for hemp and cannabis plants and products in the US and around the world. Prior to 1937, "marihuana/marijuana" was slang; it was not included in any official dictionaries.[14] The slang word marihuana/marijuana is probably of Mexican origin. In the years leading up to the tax act, it was actually in common use in America, "smoked like tobacco", and called "ganjah", or "ganja" (my references cover period 1888 - 1921)[15][16]. Considerable issues existed involving illegal immigration of Mexicans into the United States, and the one thing Mexicans were identified as being in possession of was cannabis, aka marijuana,[17]. The southern border states called for action.[17] After the enactment, illegal immigrants and U.S. citizens could be arrested for possession of cannabis." - Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I can provide plenty more sources citing the original marijuana prohibition started as a means to combat illegal Mexican immigration, if these two are not sufficient for you.

 

[Spc4Mafia 10+ year member]

The constitution was made to last. A basic structure for the goverment to follow preventing the goverment from overpowering the people

 

[jmj 10+ year member]

While I suspect your view of the original marijuana prohibition to be based on economic reasons by big business has some basis in truth, virtually everything Ive read about the reasoning behind it was much different.
"A little history - Marijuana started to come into the United States in the 1920s along with Mexican immigrants. These immigrants grew marijuana which cause some concern among people in the vicinity of where they worked. This is why some of the first anti-marijuana laws, occurred in, places, such as Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Michigan.

 

In the early 1930s, when the Great Depression hit, people started to fear these Mexican immigrants to the point people actually tried to get them to go back to Mexico. Mexican immigrants were thought to be undercutting Americans for jobs, plus it was widely thought that these people were taking marijuana, into town on the weekends, and introducing the population to marijuana convincing people to try it. The average American in the 30's felt these drug users were the reason for many of the criminal problems in their cities. Even researchers, who were rational about most things thought marijuana use, was a very serious problem back then." - Marijuana Tax Stamps - Herbal Smoke Cafe'

"In addition, the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 legitimized the use of the term "marihuana" as a label for hemp and cannabis plants and products in the US and around the world. Prior to 1937, "marihuana/marijuana" was slang; it was not included in any official dictionaries.[14] The slang word marihuana/marijuana is probably of Mexican origin. In the years leading up to the tax act, it was actually in common use in America, "smoked like tobacco", and called "ganjah", or "ganja" (my references cover period 1888 - 1921)[15][16]. Considerable issues existed involving illegal immigration of Mexicans into the United States, and the one thing Mexicans were identified as being in possession of was cannabis, aka marijuana,[17]. The southern border states called for action.[17] After the enactment, illegal immigrants and U.S. citizens could be arrested for possession of cannabis." - Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I can provide plenty more sources citing the original marijuana prohibition started as a means to combat illegal Mexican immigration, if these two are not sufficient for you.

Two points: 1. There are often hidden agendas when legislation is considered, but that doesn't make the enactment extra-legal or unconstitutional. Of dubious rationale; certainly. I think we can agree on that point.

2. I don't want to digress too far from my original question of how one reconciles support for the amendment process with the view that the Constitution is not a living document (maybe we could debate the marijuana tax stamp act in a different thread so that it doesn't derail this discussion); or how one can espouse support for the document "as written" and deny the view that it is intended to be malleable in its applications, yet simultaneously support amendments to it. The only way I can see any consistency in that approach is if the disagreement is with the results themselves (i.e. Roe v. Wade's recognition of privacy rights) rather than the process by which they occurred. The document (pre-amendment) clearly laid out the role of the Supreme Court and such subservient courts as were deemed necessary in Article Three, so it certainly can't be called "unconstitutional" when a federal court interprets a statute and finds a privacy right, can it? Disagreeable, perhaps, depending on one's political proclivities, but certainly not unconstitutional.

Edit: You may be correct that my memory of the impetus for the marijuana tax stamp act was based less on industrial interests, but I was typing "off the cuff".

 

[jmj 10+ year member]

The constitution was made to last. A basic structure for the goverment to follow preventing the goverment from overpowering the people

If one follows this viewpoint, then I think you have to agree that it was not intended to be "set in stone" so to speak, but was amenable to change and interpretation. Especially since the first ten amendments (which clearly sought to curtail the powers of the federal government) were authored by one of the original drafters, and were proposed within 20 or so years of ratification by the states.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Two points: 1. There are often hidden agendas when legislation is considered, but that doesn't make the enactment extra-legal or unconstitutional. Of dubious rationale; certainly. I think we can agree on that point.
2. I don't want to digress too far from my original question of how one reconciles support for the amendment process with the view that the Constitution is not a living document (maybe we could debate the marijuana tax stamp act in a different thread so that it doesn't derail this discussion); or how one can espouse support for the document "as written" and deny the view that it is intended to be malleable in its applications, yet simultaneously support amendments to it. The only way I can see any consistency in that approach is if the disagreement is with the results themselves (i.e. Roe v. Wade's recognition of privacy rights) rather than the process by which they occurred. The document (pre-amendment) clearly laid out the role of the Supreme Court and such subservient courts as were deemed necessary in Article Three, so it certainly can't be called "unconstitutional" when a federal court interprets a statute and finds a privacy right, can it? Disagreeable, perhaps, depending on one's political proclivities, but certainly not unconstitutional.

1) Its hard to rationally debate hidden agendas, from 80 years ago. I would agree hidden agendas are often real, especially when we are talking about our career politicians who seem to hold their career first, and reality/fairness second. This is why I conceded that it was likely you were correct their were other big-business financial reasonings. I was simply citing what is known to be the popular and public reasoning behind the original legislation.

2) Im not trying to derail the original topic. I agree the constitution is a living document, and was not suggesting it was written with God's hand, and thus is set in stone. I think someone would have to be pretty dense to suggest the Constitution was a divine document.

3) I think I like you, even if we dont entirely agree here. You seem to be well versed and intelligent.

 

[Wingman0121 10+ year member]

Just to let you know that "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance wasn't added until 1953.

There is most likely a supreme being out there somewhere but I know "God" is not a fat Buddha, a weird lady with 10 arms, a white carpenter hippie-looking guy or a dude with a towel hat. In fact if "God" exists in a physical form then it probably doesn't look like anything that we know, currently it only exist as a fictional character.

The Constitution was written by intelligent men, not God. "God" merely exists to remind people to be nice and do the right thing, but that concept can also explain ******* bombers and killer religious fanatics.

 

[jmj 10+ year member]

3) I think I like you, even if we dont entirely agree here. You seem to be well versed and intelligent.

Likewise. Nice to have a discussion that doesn't devolve into polarized positions simply because of a difference of view.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Nice to have a discussion that doesn't devolve into polarized positions simply because of a difference of view.

Agreed.

 

[Spc4Mafia 10+ year member]

If one follows this viewpoint, then I think you have to agree that it was not intended to be "set in stone" so to speak, but was amenable to change and interpretation. Especially since the first ten amendments (which clearly sought to curtail the powers of the federal government) were authored by one of the original drafters, and were proposed within 20 or so years of ratification by the states.

Sounds about right

 

[AlterEgo99 5,000+ posts]

Likewise. Nice to have a discussion that doesn't devolve into polarized positions simply because of a difference of view.

Love, exciting and new, come aboard, we've been expecting you... //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/cuddle.gif.bd1b29c179c0482f8313dbd790b74c94.gif

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Love, exciting and new, come aboard, we've been expecting you... //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/cuddle.gif.bd1b29c179c0482f8313dbd790b74c94.gif

Dont worry, you know you'll always be my first. Nobody can take that away from us.

 

[jmj 10+ year member]

Love, exciting and new, come aboard, we've been expecting you... //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/cuddle.gif.bd1b29c179c0482f8313dbd790b74c94.gif

Give me a minute while I dig up a cashmere sweater.....

 

[AlterEgo99 5,000+ posts]

Nate is my first love. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Nate is my first love. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif

You just broke my heart, again.

 

[AlterEgo99 5,000+ posts]

You just broke my heart, again.

I'm sorry shweety.