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

My opponent now wishes to rely on Concurrent Powers to show that the Federal Government of the USA has the power to legalise industrial hemp. In doing so, he is saying that one of those concurrent powers is the power to make and enforce laws. He claims that this means that the Federal Government can make and enforce any law it pleases. This of course is a complete misstatement of the actual situation. Concurrent Powers are powers that relate to areas where both the States and the USFG have the power to make laws. One such example is the DELEGALISATION of Cannabis. I have shown that throughout my arguments. Both levels of government have the power to prohibit Cannabis. The Federal Government gets that power from its International Treaties power and from the Commerce Power (see my previous round). Keep in mind that the Commerce Clause can only operate in one direction in this regard (see my argument in the previous round). Another example is establishing and maintaining courts. Of course this relates to the respective levels of the judiciary. Thus, States can establish State Courts and USFG can establish Federal Courts. Each level can collect various taxes. State taxes are different from Federal taxes. Of course each level can also make and enforce laws. But only such laws as it has the constitutional power to make in the first place. If my opponent's argument were correct, each level of Government could make laws about absolutely anything it pleased, a good part of the First Article of the Constitution would be completely ineffective and about half of the USA's constitutional law cases would have never made their way to court because there would be nothing to argue; USFG would have unlimited power to start with (since Federal Law prevails over State Law in case of conflict). It appears that my opponent is completely dismissing the doctrine of Division of Powers. Under that constitutional doctrine, USFG's powers are confined only to the powers granted to it by the constitution and all other powers remain with the states. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Thus, there is no general power on part of Congress to make ALL LAWS, such as that contended by my opponent. I have addressed the Intellectual Property Power and the Commerce Power at some length in my previous round. I have demonstrated why each of them would not apply. The Commerce Power applies to trade between the States and between the USA and other nations. It has been applied to the production of marijuana previously. However, that was a negative (prohibit) application and not a positive (allow, State laws notwithstanding) application. I have explained above how the principles were different and why the same reasoning could not be applied. My opponent now argues that the Commerce Power extends to the subject in question because by allowing domestic cultivation USFG would be able to regulate import and export. That is not a reasonable extension of the Power. You see, if USFG wants to limit the amount of imported hemp, all it has to do is impose limits on the import of hemp. It has that express power under the Constitution. It can impose tariffs, it can enforce licensing laws, etc. The power to regulate import and export is a power to regulate import and export practices, not to encourage or discourage import and export through controlling domestic production. This power exists in most federations and invariably rests with the Federal body. Nowhere in the world has it been applied in such a way as to deprive states of their residual powers to control intrastate production. The Intellectual Property Power is clearly (on its very obvious wording) a power to protect intellectual property. It is not applicable to allow USFG to legislate in respect to every single area of life where science might be involved. Such application would extend that power to absolutely (or almost absolutely) everything. The Power is clear on its wording. The Necessary and Proper Power has also been addressed in my previous rounds. It enables Congress to make such law as is necessary and proper to give effect to laws made pursuant to express powers that Congress has. Just think about this. If the Necessary and Proper Clause meant that USFG can pass any laws at large as long as it thinks they are necessary and proper for the USA, there would be no Division of Powers at all. There would be no specific provisions about Federal Powers. Why would the Constitution bother to say that USFG has the Commerce Power (for example) if USFG had unlimited power in the first place under the Necessary and Proper Clause? Of course I have not shown any sources to show that the power in question cannot arise out of the three powers outlined by my opponent. The reason is that there has never been a court ruling on the subject as such unreasonable extension has never been even attempted. By the same token, no court has ever ruled on China's power to pass a law allowing jaywalking in Las Vegas. Does that mean an argument could succeed that China has such power? My opponent can complain that the debate was about the Constitution. However, if he wished to simply argue that hemp should be legalised, he was perfectly entitled to propose a resolution to that simple effect. He cannot, however, hope to run a debate about legal issues (legalisation is very much one of those) and at the same time avoid facing questions of law. The two go hand-in-glove. My opponent cannot tell me how to run my argument. It is entirely up to me. If he wished to limit the debate to the question of "hemp should be legalised" he could have stipulated that either by a properly framed resolution or by a clear stipulation in R1 that he wishes for a particular type of argument. He has done no such thing and the field is therefore open. I will conclude by saying that my opponent has not contradicted my argument that USFG has no constitutional power to legalise industrial hemp in the USA. It can revoke Federal Laws that prohibit industrial hemp. However, that would not have the effect of legalising it. That's because it has no power to force the States to go against their residual powers. This of course could be reached by agreement. However, that would not be an act of USFG but rather a collaborative act of all law-making bodies with the required jurisdictional power. Since USFG has no power to legalise industrial hemp, a proposition that it SHOULD do so is incorrect as it is impossible to impose a moral or social or legal obligation on a party that can't have the power to fulfill such an obligation. I have much sympathy for my opponent's argument as I myself believe that industrial hemp should be legalised in the USA. However, my personal views do not matter in this debate.