This is not correct. Schedule 1 drugs require UN approval to downgrade; at least according to treaty. The US Congress can pass a law, but they can't undo a treaty they signed only in-part; else the UN has legal standing to contend their unilateral scheduling.
Treaties are not permanent, they can be withdrawn or terminated.
Also the UN isn't nearly as powerful as you seem to think it is. A substantial amount of the UN's power comes from the USA.
Other UN members can pass laws to keep cannabis illegal. There's no reason for the UN to create friction for POTUS on this. But even if there is friction, ask yourself what exactly can the rest of the UN do to stop POTUS. Not many UN member states are in a position to simultaneously care about the UN cannabis treaties and pose sanction threats to the USA.
The UN can file a complaint and have an injunction imposed by the Supreme Court to stop the Executive Order/Law.
Would love to see the front page of the NYTimes as the UN stops the Dem Prez from limiting drug schedules. That would be very eye opening for the liberal media and what all these climate change treaties are going to be like and hopefully will be an example as to WHY people fought the Kyoto Protocols.
From your earlier Wikipedia link:
“As with all articles of the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, the provisions of Article 22 are only suggestions which do not override the domestic law of the member countries:
4. The provisions of this article shall be subject to the provisions of the domestic law of the Party concerned on questions of jurisdiction.
5. Nothing contained in this article shall affect the principle that the offences to which it refers shall be defined, prosecuted and punished in conformity with the domestic law of a Party.”
What you are listing is specifically the "Penal Provisions" which are suggestions as the UN doesn't have the right to prosecute drug violations in member countries. They do, however, according to Article 6 of the Constitution (which makes all Treaties the law of the land), the right to challenge the rescheduling of drugs which conflict with treaties.
Broader authority rests here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Agai...
Correct, if UN can’t directly punish or require punishment of a citizen for possession of cannabis, then it is moot, pragmatically speaking.
But yet, incorrect generalization of Article 6 of the US Constitution:
“Supreme Law of the Land … any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-6/
edit: may I remind you that approximately half or more of the states have legalized possession of cannabis, at this point
The treaty isn't about prosecuting crimes its about adhering to international drug policy so drugs don't incubate in certain countries and end up in others. In this way, the UN does have regulatory input. It's all "voluntary"; we can always withdraw from the treaty or ignore it.
Yes, you are incorrectly generalizing Article 6. It's literally saying Treaties trump state laws and is directing judges to adhere to Federal laws and Treaties over the state laws and Constitutions which conflict with that.
> so drugs don't incubate in certain countries and end up in others
that’s a vast oversimplification, but sure
> you are incorrectly generalizing Article 6
no, i was misunderstanding the word “notwithstanding” in the clause to be an escape valve for the states, rather than as overruling the states.
again, i’m not a lawyer.
my point is that on an international level, and on a national level, the legal reforms of cannabis do appear to be well underway and nearly in full swing.
and regardless, as i noted elsewhere, according to Congress, themselves:
“Both Congress and the Administration have the ability to alter marijuana’s status as a Schedule I substance.” https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11204
and if UNODC is progressing as they are, it may only be a short matter of time before the weight shifts in favor of moving cannabis from Schedule I
the US was at that point about a decade ago, but look now
The UN can not stop congress from changing a law nor can they obtain an injunction to stop congress from changing a law nor can they obtain a court order to undue an act of congress nor can they stop congress from partially violating a treaty.
Reference:
"What happens when a treaty provision and an act of Congress conflict? The answer is that neither has any intrinsic superiority over the other and therefore the later one will prevail. In short, the treaty commitments of the United States do not diminish Congress’s constitutional powers."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/sec...