UNDCP Editorial

WHY HOLD A GENERAL ASSEMBLY SESSION ON THE SUBJECT OF ILLEGAL
DRUGS, WHEN THE DRUG WAR ITSELF IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

In 1961, the United Nations in concert with the United States forced on the
world the Single Convention Treaty on Narcotics (ratified 1973).It contained
among other things, 2 provisions that make it not only invalid but also
illegal.

The first is a provision that requires that all use of Cannabis must be
stopped in 25 years from the date of ratification, meaning that the act,
under U.S. law, will expire with respect to Cannabis, on December 31, 1998.

The second is a bit more complicated. The law of the land prior to 1969 was
the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. It required that an "occupational tax" be
imposed on all those who deal in the drug and provided that the taxpayer
must register his or her name and place of business with the Internal
Revenue Service. The act required that a transfer tax be imposed on all
transfers of marijuana and required the transfer to be "effected" with a
written order form. The forms, executed by the transferee must show the
transferor's name and address and the amount of marijuana involved. A copy
was "preserved" by the IRS and this information was made available to law
enforcement agencies.

In 1969 as a result of Leary v. United States, 395 US 6, this Act was
declared unconstitutional as it violated the 4th, 5th and 14th amendments to
the United States Constitution. In addition the Court found that it violated
the constitutional protections grounded in the following cases previously
decided by the Court:

1) Marchetti v. United States - 390 US 39
2) Grosso v. United States - 390 US 62
3) Hayes v. United States - 390 US 85
4) Thompson V. Louisville - 362 US 199
5) Tot v. United States - 319 US 463, 473

As a result of Leary, the United States Congress passed the Controlled
Substances Act of 1969, which is contained in Title 21, Chapter 13,Sections
801-971 of the United States Civil Code (USC).

Under Section 811 of Title 21 the sole right of scheduling any drug was
given to the Attorney General of the United States, based on scientific and
medical evidence to support the request compiled by the Secretary of Health
and Human Services. The DEA has no authority under U.S. law to be involved
in scheduling. Their authority is defined in Section 878 of Title 21 and
specifies a role of that of law enforcement only.

How the DEA became the sole authority on scheduling of controlled substances
is quite simple. Under the rules, the Attorney General can delegate anything
under his or her authority to any person or persons that are under the
direct control of the Office of the Attorney General. Given the DEA's 
defined role in Section 878 (USC) how this is legally permissible defies
all logic and possibly violates the Government's own conflict of interest
laws.

Under President Nixon's term of office, the Attorney General delegated this
authority to the Administrator of the DEA, who eventually re-delegated this
authority to the Deputy Administrator (See 28 C.F.R. 0.100(b) and 0.104-59
Fed. Reg. 23637 May 6, 1994).

Under paragraph d of Section 811 the following appears, "...If control is
required by the United States obligations under international treaties,
conventions, or protocols in effect on October 27, 1970 (The U.S. signed the
Single Convention Treaty in 1961), the Attorney General shall issue an order
controlling such drug under the schedule he deems most appropriate to carry
out such obligations, without regard to the findings required by subsection
(a) of this section or section 812(b) of this title and without regard to 
the procedures prescribed by subsections (a) and (b) of this section...".

For the first time in U.S. history the Attorney General must answer to a
foreign power or entity not elected by the people and not part of the
government. That entity further barred him or her from using the powers of
the office and barred the American people from using their constitutional
powers to petition their government to address a grievance.

Section 811, paragraph a & b gives the Attorney General the power to remove
a drug from scheduling or change a classification under the following:1) on
his or her own motion, 2) at the request of the Secretary of Health and
Human Services or 3) on the petition of any interested party.

The Constitution gives the power to make law only to Congress and the power
to make rules on how to enforce those laws only to the Executive branch of
government. It should be noted that the constitution and the courts have
defined "making rules" as having the power of law and are enforceable as
such.

Here, we have a entity that is not elected by the citizens of the United
States, not directly answerable to Congress (not impeachable) and not
answerable to the President of the United States creating rules that carry
the legal force of law. This violates article 6 of the United States Constitution,
which states, "...this constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be 
in pursuance thereof and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the 
the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land
; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the
Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding..." 

In 1986, the United States Supreme Court addressed this issue in Bowsher v
Synar 478 US 714. Here the court found that Congress had illegally
transferred constitutional powers expressly reserved for the Executive
Branch to the Comptroller General of The United States.

The court found in this case these principles. Congress lacks the
constitutional power to delegate away powers expressly reserved for them in
the Constitution. It also found that they do not have the power to delegate
away any of the powers reserved for the executive branch. The exact
wording of the decision is as follows: "...To permit the execution of the
laws to be vested in an officer answerable only to Congress would, in
practical terms, reserve in Congress control of the execution of the laws.
The structure of the Constitution does not permit Congress to execute the
laws; it follows that Congress cannot grant to an officer under its control
what it does not possess..."

The decision further states "...That this system of division and separation
of powers produces conflicts, confusion and discordance at times is inherent,
but it was deliberately so structured to assure full, vigorous and open
debate on the great issues affecting the people and to provide for the
operation of checks on the exercise of governmental power..." (See Myers v.
United States 272 US 52 and Humphrey's Ex'r v. United States 295 US 602)

In conclusion, we have here a series of treaties that transfer powers
expressly granted to the Executive branch of government in Article 2 of the
Constitution to the United Nations Drug Control Program, an agent of a power
not defined as a part of the US Government but a foreign entity. The US
Constitution does not permit any officer of the Government, no matter what
branch, to be controlled by or have rules placed on them by a foreign entity
or an organization not directly answerable to either Congress or the
President.

Government, as defined by the Constitution of the United States, has the
following responsibilities, "... Establish Justice, insure Domestic 
Tranquillity, Provide for the Common Defense, Promote the General Welfare,
and Secure the Blessing of Liberty..."

It's no secret that because of Ronald Regan's Drug War, we now live in a 
Police State with wire taps by Federal Agencies beyond the reach of  
State and Federal Courts, knockless and warrentless searches, and 
endless road blocks with virtually no reason for them except to harass
citizens-obstensively to look for guns and drugs. We are even asked to 
prove who we are and our citizenship before boarding an airplane. I guess 
no one in Washington has ever read the 4th amendment. We are losing our 
rights! What's next? What will they take away now -- Freedom of the Press, 
Freedom of Assembly?

"...He who knows the enemy and himself will never in a hundred battles
be at risk; He who does not know the enemy, but knows himself will
sometimes win and sometimes lose; He who knows neither the enemy nor himself
will be at risk in every battle... Victory can be anticipated but it can
never be forced..." (Sun-Tzu, The Art of Warfare)