Jogro
Well-Known Member
There seems to be some misunderstanding here. This isn't a LAW (yet), its a BILL.
It has been passed by the House, but not (yet) the Senate, nor has the President signed it. See here.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-313
As far as I can tell, the bill is now locked up within the US Judiciary committee.
It may. . .or may not. . .make it out of that committee, and even assuming it does and it actually goes to a vote, it certainly could still fail to garner the necessary 51 Senate votes to pass. It also could get significantly changed in committee to the point where the most offensive parts are removed, requiring later reconciliation with the House version.
Plenty of stuff passes one chamber (house or Senate) not to be passed by the other. That's especially true of wild-eyed house bills like this one that go to the Senate to die. If you're concerned, you can still write your Senator indicating your displeasure with this bill, though that's still probably a bit premature until it gets out of committee.
Next issue is, just because a bill gets passed into law, does NOT mean that
a. The law is actually enforceable, or that
b. The law is actually Constitutional.
I actually have pretty serious reservations about "b". Bluntly, apart from very limited circumstances, the USA has no legal jurisdiction outside its borders. Just saying that its law applies to US citizens abroad DOES NOT make it true.
Specifically, just because the US Congress takes the position that the discussion of otherwise legal sale of marijuana in Holland between American citizens is against the law, that doesn't mean the judiciary will agree. If the USA doesn't enjoy the legal ability to ban use of a particular drug anywhere on the planet (and it most certainly does not), I can't see how it can criminally prosecute someone for planning to commit an otherwise legal activity outside its borders.
To me something like that smacks of "instant Supreme Court challenge", and if I were betting, I'd bet that this particular issue would be one both the Conservative and Liberal parts of the bench would agree is objectionable.
It has been passed by the House, but not (yet) the Senate, nor has the President signed it. See here.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-313
As far as I can tell, the bill is now locked up within the US Judiciary committee.
It may. . .or may not. . .make it out of that committee, and even assuming it does and it actually goes to a vote, it certainly could still fail to garner the necessary 51 Senate votes to pass. It also could get significantly changed in committee to the point where the most offensive parts are removed, requiring later reconciliation with the House version.
Plenty of stuff passes one chamber (house or Senate) not to be passed by the other. That's especially true of wild-eyed house bills like this one that go to the Senate to die. If you're concerned, you can still write your Senator indicating your displeasure with this bill, though that's still probably a bit premature until it gets out of committee.
Next issue is, just because a bill gets passed into law, does NOT mean that
a. The law is actually enforceable, or that
b. The law is actually Constitutional.
I actually have pretty serious reservations about "b". Bluntly, apart from very limited circumstances, the USA has no legal jurisdiction outside its borders. Just saying that its law applies to US citizens abroad DOES NOT make it true.
Specifically, just because the US Congress takes the position that the discussion of otherwise legal sale of marijuana in Holland between American citizens is against the law, that doesn't mean the judiciary will agree. If the USA doesn't enjoy the legal ability to ban use of a particular drug anywhere on the planet (and it most certainly does not), I can't see how it can criminally prosecute someone for planning to commit an otherwise legal activity outside its borders.
To me something like that smacks of "instant Supreme Court challenge", and if I were betting, I'd bet that this particular issue would be one both the Conservative and Liberal parts of the bench would agree is objectionable.