Resolved: The United States Federal Government should legalize Industrial Hemp.

My opponent is absolutely right. I have not a thing to say against the industrial use of hemp being made legal. In fact, I support the idea. However, I am against any suggestion that the Parliament of China should be the one to legalise industrial hemp in the USA. I am equally against a suggestion that industrial hemp in the USA should be legalised by a declaration of the President of Indonesia. I am opposed to the Pope legalising industrial hemp in the USA. And last but not least, I am against any suggestion that the Federal Government of the US should legalise industrial hemp in the USA. All of the above have exactly the same power to legalise industrial hemp in the USA. For all of the above, that power is null. And you cannot impose a moral or social obligation on a party which does not have the power to fulfill that obligation. My opponent seeks to rely on the Necessary and Proper Clause (NAPC). I have already commented on it previously (see my comment about Incidental Power). The clause is indeed called an elastic clause. The clause is flexible in that it is not limited to a single field. Rather, it applies to any field where an express power exists in the Constitution, so long as the proposed law is necessary and proper for carrying out the duties of the legislative branch. Those duties are defined by the Constitution itself. They are confined to specific powers. Thus, mail theft is a Federal offence. That's because of the Postal Clause in the Constitution. For NAPC to be invoked, there must be some express power which necessitates such invokation. It is true that NAPC by its very nature extends the scope of Federal power. However, that scope is still confined to the powers within the Constitution. There is no power that could extend to the production of industrial hemp even if we were to attempt to link it via the NAPC. My opponent makes some further contentions: 1. "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." This clause of the Constitution allows Congress to legislate to promote the progress of science and arts and invention. The clause specifies the scope of this power. That scope is: "by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries". In other words, this power relates to regulating intellectual property. Examples include copyright law and patent law. I fail to see any rationale in suggesting that legalising hemp in the USA would help protect intellectual property rights of authors, scientists etc. 2. "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." This so called Commerce Clause relates to interstate and international trade. It is this clause that gives Congress the power to sanction the import of hemp products. My opponent is here closer to home as this power was in fact relied on by USFG to pass a law prohibiting production of marijuana for medical use and this DID include intrastate production. In Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), it was decided that Congress could rely on the Commerce Clause for that purpose. The reason was that it is impossible to distinguish marijuana grown for interstate use from that grown for intrastate use. Thus, to stop interstate trade of marijuana, Congress had to stop its production on intrastate level. In other words, it was said that to effectively prohibit interstate trade in cannabis, we need to prohibit its intrastate production. This would not apply in the opposite direction. In other words, had Congress decided that it wanted to allow production of cannabis, it could not use the Commerce Clause to pass such legislation. It could not be said that to effectively allow interstate trade in industrial hemp, it is necessary to allow its intrastate production. To allow interstate trade of cannabis, Congress would simply need to revoke any laws prohibiting such trade. The difficulty in distinguishing cannabis intended for interstate trade from that intended for intrastate trade would not even present itself as there would be no prohibition on the Federal level to start with. Thus, Gonzales does not apply in such a way as to support my opponent's case. As for my opponent's reasoning in this part of the argument, it does not follow logically. He is correct that trade with other countries falls within the Commerce Clause, as does interstate trade. Thus, Congress can allow import of cannabis or trade in it amongst the states. But the power does not extend to intrastate production. It just does not logically follow. At the end, I will address a comment made by a reader in the comments section. I thank that reader for taking interest in this debate. He has commented that my argument is semantic. Respectfully, it is not. My opponent's intention was NOT to argue that USFG should simply revoke Federal laws prohibiting the production of cannabis. If you look at his contentions in R1, you will see that he does not even address division of power. Instead, he focuses on the merits of producing industrial hemp. If USFG did revoke laws prohibiting production of cannabis, this would not achieve the ends sought and advocated by my opponent in the course of his argument. Therefore, what he is really seeking is blanket legalisation of industrial hemp in the USA. This is also evident from his R2 and R3. He is arguing in those rounds that USFG has the power to allow the production of industrial hemp in the USA. Needless to say, if my opponent were correct then the effect of the law subject of the resolution would be that the states would have no power to disallow such prodution. This is because Federal Law prevails over State Law in case of conflict. My opponent is correct that I am attacking his resolution. I am entitled to. It is the resolution (and not the Initiator's reasons in support thereof) that must be proven or disproven. My opponent, with respect, has no power to dictate to me how I will argue my case. He could have stipulated in R1 what debate he is asking for and I would then oblige. However, given no such stipulation, I am perfectly entitled to argue on any basis I find fit. In conclusion, USFG has no power to legalise industrial hemp in the USA. The power is with the States. My opponent has not shown (despite trying to) any source in the Constitution that would give USFG such power. The resolution has a similar legal effect to one of "The Israeli Parliament should legalise gay marriage in Kansas City". The answer to that resolution would be obvious. "No it shouldn't. It can't. You're wrong." Well, the effect is the same. USFG has just as much power to legalise industrial hemp in the USA as Israel has to legalise gay marriage in Kansas City. Finally, I would like to re-iterate that I am very much in favour of allowing the production of industrial hemp on US soil. In that regard, I am in heated agreement with my opponent. If the debate were "The 50 States should legalise industrial hemp", I would not take issue with it. However, as it stands, the resolution cannot succeed.