Letter: Proof is in constitution

Dear Editor,

Your May 24 edition contained a thoughtful letter from Robert Burke titled, Best to Legalize Drugs. This is another one of those issues for which I can see no meaningful difference between Dems and Repubs. Burke’s letter addresses the seriously nonsensical result of this criminalization nightmare. How about the constitutionality question?

In Ron Paul’s book “The Revolution,” (2008) he discusses the historical realities of the prohibition period, but goes on to point out the incredible inconsistency between prohibition and our current state of affairs. No one, on any side of the debate, ever argued that the federal government should have the right to pass a law making the consumption of alcohol illegal. The very suggestion would have been outrageous to most Americans. It was always and everywhere assumed that a constitutional amendment was necessary.

It seems that their constitutional training was a bit keener than our own. Nevertheless, a short time after prohibition ended, the federal government took it upon itself to pass law controlling a long list of substances. As this overreach of their authority did not affect the average person to the extent that prohibition did, it went largely unnoticed. But it was unconstitutional.

They acted outside of their powers — illegally. But it seems some time since either the DNC or the GOP has given a rat’s behind about the Constitution. Most of them just want to get re-elected, and their votes are for sale. But Ron Paul is consistent, believes what he says, and backs it up. I believe in constitutional government. So should you.

Tags: opinion, letters, politics