The Louisiana Supreme court ruled in State v Bonoa 172 LA. 955-963, in 1931, that the “marijuana plant is a plant possessing properties deleterious to health and dangerous to the public safety and morals”. The court concluded that whiskey and wine were less injurious than marijuana.

 

Reference

 

MAINE LEGISLATURES’ HANDBOOK ( Nov. 2016)
http://www.maine.gov/legis/opla/LegHandbook2017.pdf
D. LIMITS ON LEGISLATIVE POWERS page 48
1.Constitutiona Limitations

 

 

Judicial Reviews


Compelling State Interest Test or Rational Basis Test

 

in a long series of cases this Court has held that where fundamental personal liberties are involved, they may not be abridged by the States simply on a showing that a regulatory statute has some rational relationship to the effectuation of a proper state purpose. Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479, 497

 

State “police power which trenches upon the constitutionally protected freedom … bears a heavy burden of justification … and will be upheld only if it is necessary, and not merely rationally related, to the accomplishment of a permissible state policy.” McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184, 196 (1964); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 497, (1965); Ravin v. State of Alaska, 537 P. 2d 494, 497 (1975). Emphasis added.

 

Where certain "fundamental rights" are involved, the Court has held that regulation limiting these rights may be justified only by a "compelling state interest," ….. and that legislative enactments must be narrowly drawn to express only the legitimate state interests at stake. Roe v Wade 410 U.S. 113, 155(1973)

 

“ ‘Where there is a significant encroachment upon personal liberty, the State may prevail only upon showing a subordinating interest which is compelling.’” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 497, 85 S. Ct. 1678 (1965); Bates v. Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516, 524, 80 S. Ct. 412,417 (1960); Roe v Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 155, 93 S.Ct 705, 35 (1973); Ravin v. State of Alaska, 537 P. 2d 494, 497 (1975).

 

…the "`subordinating interest of the State must be compelling'" in order to overcome the individual constitutional rights at stake. Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 127 (1959)

 

Only cases requiring stricter standard of review than whether statute bears rational relationship to legitimate state purpose are those cases which involve infringement of a right explicitly enunciated in the Constitution or otherwise recognized as fundamental. Roe v Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct 705 (1973), Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 486, 85 S.Ct. 1678 (1965)

" In the absence of compelling justification, the police power does not extend so far as to permit the Government to protect an individual against himself and that the concern for public health and safety is relevant only insofar as the action of one individual may threaten the well-being of others." United States V Kiffer 477 F2.d 349 (1973), at 354.

 

"If, therefore, a statute purporting to have been enacted to protect the public health, ……or the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects, or is a palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law, it is the duty of the courts to so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the constitution." Mugler v. Kansas, (1887)123 U.S. 623, 661

 

The Court noted that "constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. . . . It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon.." Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 647 (1961) > Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 635(1886).

 

It “makes a crime of a grandmother's choice to live with her grandson in circumstances like those presented here. When a city undertakes such intrusive regulation of the family the usual judicial deference to the legislature is inappropriate.” Moore v. East Cleveland 431 U.S. 494, 499

“legislative enactment’s must be narrowly drawn to express only the legitimate state interest at stake.” Griswold v Connecticut, 381 U.S. at 485, 85 S.Ct., at 1682.

 

“This constitutional guaranty demands only that the law shall not be unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious, and that means selected shall have real and substantial relation to the object. Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502, (1934).

 

"The act is sought to be sustained specifically upon the ground that it is reasonably calculated to promote the public health; and the determination we are called upon to make is whether the act has a real and substantial relation to that end or is a clear and arbitrary invasion of appellant's property rights guaranteed by the Constitution." … Liggett Co. v. Baldridge, 278 U.S. 105, 111 (1928).

 

"liberty" is …….freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . . and …..that certain [liberty] interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 848 (1992). >[367 U.S. 497, 543]

Un Reasonable Seize Marijuana-------------- Our Rights Their Betrayal
Print Print | Sitemap
Our Rights Their Betrayal