Constitutional Law

Question 1

The issue is whether Section 11 is an unconstitutional act of Congress, where it commands local law enforcement officers into investigating federal criminal law, and then filing administrative reports summarizing their findings.

Answer 1

The express restriction pertinent here is the 10th Amendment. It provides that the powers of the federal government not expressly herein granted are reserved to the states, and the people, respectively. The United States Supreme Court has interpreted this clause to prohibit “commandeering”. See Printz. “Commandeering” state government means just that: commanding local action, usurping local control, by taking over the state legislative or executive functions. For example, in Printz, Congress required local sheriffs to participate in a gun registration program, forcing them to conduct background checks. The Court held this was sufficient “commandeering” to violate the 10th Amendment, rendering the act in question unconstitutional.

Question 2

Application

Answer 2

Here, similar if not more excessive demands are made on local executive officers. Section 11 provides that: (1) state law enforcement must investigate all offenses within 5 days to determine whether the offense occurred under the influence of marijuana and (2) file monthly reports summarizing their findings. Local police cannot be commandeered into performing their investigation for the federal government. Even if it is permissible to require some mandatory administrative reporting for local officers (e.g., sharing of fingerprints, violent criminals, etc.), the second section is also unconstitutional because it is premised entirely on the unconstitutionally required investigation.
Thus, Section 11 is unconstitutional.

Question 3

The next issue is whether Section 15 is an unconstitutional, “coercive” string attached to government spending. Most likely, it is not.

Answer 3

Congress generally has the power to spend funds collected by the Internal Revenue Service in such a way as to promote the general welfare. This is true even if the spending places conditions on the receipt of funds that require local governments to perform or forgo certain acts, so long as such conditions are related to a valid purpose and do not require states to act unconstitutionally. Such federal expenditures will generally be upheld unless the conditions are “coercive.”

Question 4

Application

Answer 4

Here, Section 15 more closely resembles the act in Dole. The act generally promotes the general welfare, the program relates to reducing crime, and the states are not required to act unconstitutionally. It is not unconstitutional to criminalize marijuana use. The sole issue is coercion. $10 million out of a $600 million budget section is far less than what was upheld in Dole.
Therefore, this section is most likely constitutional.