SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Seattle throws out pot convictions:
Judges in Seattle have decided to quash convictions for marijuana possession for anyone prosecuted in the city between 1996 and 2010. City Attorney Pete Holmes asked the court to take the step "to right the injustices of a drug war that has primarily targeted people of colour."
Possession of marijuana became legal in the state of Washington in 2012.
Officials estimate that more than 542 people could have their convictions dismissed by mid-November.
Mr Holmes said the city should "take a moment to recognise the significance" of the court's ruling. "We've come a long way, and I hope this action inspires other jurisdictions to follow suit," he said. Mayor Jenny Durkan also welcomed the ruling, which she said would offer residents a "clean slate."
Order (PDF).
See also: Vacating misdemeanor marijuana convictions is the right thing to do (Editorial)
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 29 2018, @12:43AM (2 children)
Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution [wikipedia.org]:
Get it yet?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 29 2018, @05:51AM (1 child)
That's not what that means, there is no right to put random chemicals into your body and there's over a century of case law to back that up. As a result, the 9th amendment wouldn't apply as there is no right being denied or disparaged,
By your interpretation, the government couldn't do anything because it could be claimed to be an unenumerated right.
This is just like that moron that sued a law school for violating the magna Carta despite his failure to complete the application and being in the U.S..
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 29 2018, @06:58AM
You don't seem to understand something. The Constitution is not merely a list of rights you have, but a list of powers that the government has. If the government does something that the Constitution does not say it can do, then it is violating the Constitution.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the government can wage a war on drugs. The courts interpreted the commerce clause in an insane manner in order to justify the drug war. By their logic, anything that can conceivably affect interstate commerce can be regulated by the federal government, even if the transactions take place entirely within a single state. The commerce clause was simply never meant to give the government that much power, so the government is acting unconstitutionally.
There's also the matter of natural rights. If the government denies that you have a right, that does not mean that you don't have it; it only means that your rights are being violated.
The federal government can do what the Constitution explicitly says it can do.