The State of Maine has standing to question the constitutionality of Congress criminalizing marijuana. To seek protection from the Supreme Court of the United States of Maine citizens’ federal right s of life, liberty, and property secured by the Fourth Amendment and the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment from threatened and actual injury from federal government police power. Certain federal marijuana regulations deprive citizens of their constitutional right to acquire, possess and use property such as federal housing, buying a gun, bankers, researchers, truck drivers and drug addicts.
Due process clause of the 5th Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits the federal government from depriving any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law (see also the Maine Constitution, Article I, Section 6-A). In general, substantive due process requires the federal government to have a legitimate and very compelling need, reasons, for enacting any law that affects people’s fundamental rights of life, liberty, and property. Legislators’ Handbook D. Limits On Legislative Power p. 31 1. Constitutional Limitations; Due process http://legislature.maine.gov/doc/2611
By House Rules Part 2 Rule 201 (2)(B) and state law Title 5 § 191. 3, Speaker of the house can appoint counsel by requesting the office Attorney General of Maine to file a lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the United States to determine the compelling need, reasons, for the United States Congress to criminalize marijuana and threaten and deprive the fundamental rights of liberty and property of Maine citizens being part of the marijuana economy.
SENATE RULES 129TH LEGISLATURE
Part 2 President and Pro Tempore,
Rule 201. Duties and powers of the president.
The President shall: 11. Appoint legal counsel.
SCOTUS: ORIGINAL JUSIDICTION
Article III section 2
SCOTUS: Rule 17 . Procedure in an Original Action https://www.supremecourt.gov/ctrules/2013RulesoftheCourt.pdf
MAINE STATUTE Title 5 §191.
A “request” to the Attorney General of Maine Aaron Frey (who shall) to find out what the substance, the compelling reasons, from the Supreme Court of the United States, for the United States Congress to criminalize marijuana, that still threatens to deprive the liberty and property of citizens of Maine and of the United States.
The State of Maine has standing to question the reasonableness of these federal criminal laws that have and still threatened the deprivation of constitutional rights of liberty and property of Maine citizens for violating federal marijuana and related laws such as banking. There are no reasons. There are no victims of a crime. Police power is not protecting public health and safety, the rights of others. The arbitrary federal enforcement of possession laws demonstrates the use of police power is unreasonable’
The state of Maine does not have to prove the marijuana laws are irrational based on the court ruling that marijuana is not a fundamental right. Maine has to show the operation and effect of federal police power was and threatened deprivation of constitutional rights of liberty and property secured by the Fourth and the due process clause of the Fifth Amendments.
It should not take more than week for the Attorney General’s office to prepare the paper work to be filed and served, State of Maine v. United States of America. U.S.A. has 60 days to respond unless it is filed earlier or motion for extension of time. Court rule 17 https://www.supremecourt.gov/ctrules/2013RulesoftheCourt.pdf
Marijuana laws have been declared a political question because what is a crime is not a fundamental right therefore judicial review of criminal laws has been rational basis. Marijuana laws are rational regulations in contravention to the constitution of the United States and the State of Maine.
No person shall be … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
Declaration of Rights.
Section 1. Natural rights. All people are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.
Section 6-A. Discrimination against persons prohibited. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor be denied the equal protection of the laws, nor be denied the enjoyment of that person's civil rights or be discriminated against in the exercise thereof.
Section 19. Right of redress for
injuries. Every person, for an injury inflicted on the
person or the person's reputation, property or immunities, shall have remedy by due course of law; and right and justice shall be administered freely and without sale, completely and without denial,
promptly and without delay.
Article IV. Part Third.
Legislative Power.Section 1. … extent of legislative power… The Legislature, with the exceptions hereinafter stated, shall have full power to make and establish all reasonable laws and regulations for the defense and benefit of the people of this State, not repugnant to this Constitution, nor to that of the United States.
LEGISLATORS’ HANDBOOK http://www.maine.gov/legis/opla/LegHandbook2017.pdf
D. LIMITS ON LEGISLATIVE POWER.......... 48
a. Equal protection.
“The United States Constitution, Amendment XIV, Section 1 (“Equal Protection Clause”) forbids the State to deny to any person the equal protection of the laws … Courts have developed a series of judicial tests that are applied when laws are challenged under this section. This is a very complex area of constitutional law. In general, however, laws that treat persons differently based on race or national origin or the exercise of fundamental constitutional rights are presumed to violate the Equal Protection Clause and will be found unconstitutional unless the State has a legitimate and very compelling justification for exceptions. … Laws that treat persons differently based on other characteristics or in the exercise of non-fundamental rights are generally presumed to be constitutional, unless there is no rational basis for the differing treatment.”
c. Due process.............................................50
c. Due process. The United States Constitution, Amendment XIV also prohibits the State from depriving any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law …There are a variety of limitations that this clause imposes on state activities. Some important limitations fall under the branch of due process constitutional law called “substantive due process.” In general, substantive due process requires the State to have a legitimate and very compelling need for enacting any law that affects people’s exercise of certain fundamental rights, such as the right to freely associate, the right to vote, the right to interstate travel and the right to privacy. This is a highly complex area of constitutional law; a detailed legal analysis may be required to determine whether a law would actually violate the Due Process Clause.
I want to point out that the immigration problem at the Mexican and U.S. border is about people fleeing gang violence in their home countries which are being govern by the drug lords, the root of the gang violence? The drug war has always been a threat to public safety and health requiring police power.
Attacking the supply side in the war on drugs is a failure because demand for illegal property will always remain. This collateral damage is a result of an activist judiciary treating criminal laws as a political question because what is a crime is not a fundamental right, political police power.