Section 91-Federal Power Essay

A licensing committee voted 4-1 in favour of Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne’s proposal of selling marijuana in only LCBO type shops that are government run. This comes in preparation of federal legalization of the substance by next year. The vote also renders Ontario responsible for covering any citywide costs that are in relation with ending the pot embargo and new legislative tools, which up penalties for illegal pot shop owners and establishments where the plant is smoked. Ontario is moving for the consumption of pot only to be legal in private homes. This creates an upset for the Marijuana community as smoking in areas where it has been legally consumed over the years will no longer be allowed.

Legalizing the use of marijuana has been an ongoing debate since it was first classified as a narcotic in the Narcotic Act in 1970 (Napchan et al, 2011). Once defined as a narcotic, cannabis was made unattainable through a pharmacist, or through prescription by a physician (Napchan et al, 2011). Cannabis, also known as “marijuana”, refers to any preparation of the cannabis plant, most of which are intended for use as a psychoactive substance (Napchan et al, 2011). Marijuana has many benefits in Canada if legalization were to occur. Canada’s economy would benefit greatly from the legalization of marijuana by boosting taxation dollars, as well as creating jobs for many Canadians. Not only would the economy benefit, but communities would benefit

In Canada, cannabis use became illegal in 1923 after the Act to Prohibit the Improper Use of Opium and other Drugs added cannabis to the list of illicit substances. Cannabis then became an illegal substance under the same category of harder drugs such as cocaine and heroin, despite lack of scientific or criminal correlations to suggest such categorization (CAMH, 2014). An increase in illicit drug use in the 1960’s and 1970’s was met by greatly increased criminalization and the associated individual and social costs. The strain on the courts, and the rising numbers of otherwise law-abiding youth being sentenced for recreational use of cannabis created pressures for the liberalization of Canada’s drug laws. As a result, the Commission of Inquiry

The power of the federal government faced multiple conflicts that helped strengthen the government as a whole. The central government was always challenged and questioned for their choices to improve the nation by individuals and states. When the federal government was challenged with a problem this helped shape and strengthen their power through the outcomes of each event. The government was faced with many different challenges but two challenges that were important was the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, and the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. Not only was the government challenged but the Constitution was also affected with these conflicts. With the challenges of the Whiskey Rebellion and the Louisiana Purchase it helped shape the role of the central government and this lead the government and presidents to gain more power.

The Separation of Powers was simply created to establish a system of checks and balances so that no one particular division of the government could solely control all of our nations business. This makes is so the President does not have dictatorial control. Congress has a form of checked power so they cannot make unfair laws. The Judicial Branch is then not allowed to exceed the power that is given to them by law. It’s a system “Of the people, by the people, and for the people” allowing us as the people to be the unmentioned fourth branch of the government. Since we as a people elect our representatives, that allows us to change our form of government and provide the best checks and balances we can to our government and its

With the apparent lack of danger that marijuana presents to Canadians, there is no need to waste valuable taxpayer dollars on enforcement of the law. According to the University of Ottawa, Canada annually spends an average of 500 million dollars on enforcement of the prohibition of marijuana (UOttawa). This is a colossal waste of taxpayer money on a drug that has been proven to be less harmful than alcohol and tobacco. Additionally, the government of Canada states that “Laws help to ensure a safe and peaceful society” (Canada Justice). The fact that alcohol and tobacco do not disrupt a “safe and peaceful” society sets a precedent that marijuana, a less harmful drug also does not disrupt said safety, thus rendering the law against marijuana irrelevant. Regardless of the money spent on enforcing marijuana legislation, the government would stand to make that money back tenfold with the regulated tax and sale of

“Canada’s illegal marijuana industry has been valued at over $7 billion annually, with some estimating $21 billion” and Akpata also mentions that the war on drugs has cost over billions of tax money (14). Last, Akpata insists that “Canada is a marijuana exporting country and has some of the highest rates of consumption of marijuana on earth” (15). Akpata in his research mention that, “Colorado brings in roughly US$10 million per month from a marijuana tax—more than comes in from alcohol sales” (14), he suggests that if government legalize weed in Canada and put the tax on its sale then they will able to generate a huge amount of profit because Canada is the largest country of hemp consumers in the world. It is also estimated that “B.C. would reap $500 million a year in taxation and licensing revenues from a liquor-control-board style of government regulation and sale” (MacQueen 21). Furthermore, Macqueen in his research “predicts a $12-million saving in enforcement costs in the first year, rising to $40 million “as courts and prisons adapt to fewer and fewer violators.” It predicts combined savings and new revenue” will approximately save over $60 million of tax money in British Columbia and this figure will estimate to get double in 2017

In the recent past, legal controversy surrounding the application of the law across the federal and state tiers of the government has widened. The American AG sought to sue the State of California for the passing of three laws that limited cooperation between the federal immigration agents and the State. In the views of the AG, the states, such as California and Oakland, are simply obstructing the Federal agencies from enforcing the law. Against this backdrop, the paper explores the issue of whether state and local governments can declare sanctuary status legally; whether the US president has the powers to deny grants to sanctuary states; and if the president can enforce executive orders among states. Consequently,

Everyone is aware of the three branches of the federal government: Legislative, Executive and Judicial. There is another power that is has a say in law is well, the power of the state is often a lost and forgotten power. When the federal government puts a law or regulatory programs into effect do the states have any say if they have to follow these regulatory guidance? The answer to this question is surprisingly no. It all boils down to the state does have power to go against these regulations and laws if they are determined to be unconstitutional.

The notion Separation of Powers was put into place with one single objective: to keep any form of authority or government establishment from ruling with an iron fist. Once America gained her independence from monarchal Britain, the framers made sure that no one branch or person could have too much power. Thus, this system of separation of powers was divided into three government branches, each of which was designated certain individual powers. This system, also known as Checks and Balances, proposed by the Founding Fathers of the United States of America, is embodied in the U.S. Constitution in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd articles. These powers are allocated in such a way that each branch must “check” the other, keeping their respective powers limited and further upholding the

When our country is faced with severe war debts, currency with no value, and no taxes to fund our country in order to prevent our country from forcing our country and denizens into bankruptcy we will issue several requirements and orders. First there will be uniform currency across the country which will be converted from metals to paper. Each state will be responsible for the taxation of their citizens, while the Federal government will be liable for taxing the states and their citizens in order to maintain a functioning government. Congress shall be held responsible for the coining of money and deciding its value, which will be agreed upon based in if there is enough gold to back in.

Bicameral legislature is referring to a body of government that has two legislative houses or chambers. We have this for a historical, practical, and theoretical reason because “but a bicameral legislature provided the perfect opportunity for compromises- in fact, for the great compromises.” In the house of representatives, there are 435 members. The term is two years. The qualifications to be a member of the house are you must be twenty five, you must have been a citizen for at least seven years, and finally you must be at the time of the election of the state they represent.

Therefore in the given impugned law, the MCA is related to the trade and commerce with other countries, the character of the law, even though not all of them, does fall under the enumerated head of power Commonwealth Constitution s51 (i). Therefore the given Act is valid in terms of its character, as it affects the trade and commerce of cannabis for the purpose of medicinal use.

Considering that we give government it’s power through popular sovereignty, discussed in week 1, do you think that it’s a problem that the Constitution places limits on our power?

Nevertheless, the Court also realizes that for the proper functioning of these public bodies, powers that are reasonably within their purview for the attaining of the objectives of the Parliament’s intention in promulgating the statute should not be deprived to them by the application of the Ultra Vires doctrine. This has been aptly pointed out by Keith Davis in relation to Local Authorities as follows: “If the application (of the doctrine of ultra vires) becomes too lax Local Authorities will enjoy a greater power than the Parliament intended they should have and if it was relaxed altogether their freedom of action would become absolute and their exercise of power would be quite arbitrary…. If on the other hand the application becomes too strict, local authorities will enjoy a narrower power than what the Parliament intended they should have; and ultimately they would exercise no independent power at all. Then Local Government would be transformed into Local Arm of Central Government administration, if it did not wither away completely.” To achieve the required balance, the Courts have developed certain rules which is called by some authors as the “Necessarily Incidentals Doctrine”.