Transcription of the 1789 Joint Resolution of Congress Proposing 12 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution

Transcription of the 1789 Joint Resolution of Congress Proposing 12 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution

This information was taken from archives.gov. One should assume it is factual… but assuming information is a fact is a perilous assumption.  Here is what you paid for… 

Transcription of the 1789 Joint Resolution of Congress Proposing 12 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution

On September 25, 1789, the First Congress of the United States proposed 12 amendments to the Constitution.

The 1789 Joint Resolution of Congress proposing the amendments is on display in the Rotunda in the National Archives Museum. Ten of the proposed 12 amendments were ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures on December 15, 1791.

The ratified Articles (Articles 3–12) constitute the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, or the U.S. Bill of Rights.

In 1992, 203 years after it was proposed, Article 2 was ratified as the 27th Amendment to the Constitution. Article 1 was never ratified.

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Article the first... After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.

Article the second… No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Article the third… Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Article the fourth… A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Article the fifth… No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Article the sixth… The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article the seventh… No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article the eighth… In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Article the ninth… In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Article the tenth… Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Article the eleventh… The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article the twelfth… The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

ATTEST,

Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, Speaker of the House of Representatives
John Adams, Vice-President of the United States, and President of the Senate
John Beckley, Clerk of the House of Representatives.
Sam. A Otis Secretary of the Senate

Constitutional Amendments 1-10 make up what is known as The Bill of Rights. Amendments 11-27 are listed below.

Related Blogs

MI Supreme Court Declines to Intervene in Public Records Dispute
MI Supreme Court Declines to Intervene in Public Records Dispute

Michigan Supreme Court Declines to Intervene in Public Records DisputeTeachers Union and School District at Odds Over Data AccessThe Michigan Supreme Court recently declined to hear a case regarding whether public school teachers' class materials are subject to the...

Felony Firearm Possession in Michigan
Felony Firearm Possession in Michigan

Felony Firearm Possession in Michigan.In Michigan, the laws surrounding firearms are strict, especially when it comes to felony firearm possession. If you’re charged with a felony and found to be in possession of a firearm during the crime, the penalties can be...

Do the passengers in your vehicle have 4th Amendment Rights?
Do the passengers in your vehicle have 4th Amendment Rights?

Do Passengers in your vehicle have 4th Amendment Rights against Search and Seizure?Passengers in a vehicle are afforded Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, though the scope of these rights varies based on the specific circumstances...

Probable Cause v Reasonable Suspicion
Probable Cause v Reasonable Suspicion

What's the difference between probable cause and reasonable suspicion?Definition of Probable Cause Probable cause refers to the belief held by a reasonable person that a crime is currently being committed, has already been committed, or is likely to be committed in...

Feel like your rights have been infringed upon while encountering law enforcement or the court system? The only way to win is to fight. The only way to fight is to hire a lawyer. And the only way to hire a lawyer is to pay. That is the system. So, hire the best lawyer you can because in the long run, it saves you time and money!

AMENDMENT XI

Passed by Congress March 4, 1794. Ratified February 7, 1795.

Note: Article III, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 11. The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

AMENDMENT XII

Passed by Congress December 9, 1803. Ratified June 15, 1804.

Note: A portion of Article II, section 1 of the Constitution was superseded by the 12th amendment. The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; — the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; — The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. [And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. –]* The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. *Superseded by section 3 of the 20th amendment.

AMENDMENT XIII

Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.

Note: A portion of Article IV, section 2, of the Constitution was superseded by the 13th amendment.

Section 1.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.

The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

*Changed by section 1 of the 26th amendment.

AMENDMENT XV

Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870.

Section 1.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude–

Section 2.

The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XVI

Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.

Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

AMENDMENT XVII

Passed by Congress May 13, 1912. Ratified April 8, 1913.

Note: Article I, section 3, of the Constitution was modified by the 17th amendment.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

AMENDMENT XVIII

Passed by Congress December 18, 1917. Ratified January 16, 1919. Repealed by amendment 21.

Section 1.

After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section 2.

The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3.

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

AMENDMENT XIX

Passed by Congress June 4, 1919. Ratified August 18, 1920.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XX

Passed by Congress March 2, 1932. Ratified January 23, 1933.

Note: Article I, section 4, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of this amendment. In addition, a portion of the 12th amendment was superseded by section 3.

Section 1.

The terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

Section 2.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

Section 3.

If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

Section 4.

The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

Section 5.

Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.

Section 6.

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.

AMENDMENT XXI

Passed by Congress February 20, 1933. Ratified December 5, 1933.

Section 1.

The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2.

The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Section 3.

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

AMENDMENT XXII

Passed by Congress March 21, 1947. Ratified February 27, 1951.

Section 1.

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section 2.

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

AMENDMENT XXIII

Passed by Congress June 16, 1960. Ratified March 29, 1961.

Section 1.

The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct:

A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

Section 2.

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XXIV

Passed by Congress August 27, 1962. Ratified January 23, 1964.

Section 1.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Section 2.

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XXV

Passed by Congress July 6, 1965. Ratified February 10, 1967.

Note: Article II, section 1, of the Constitution was affected by the 25th amendment.

Section 1.

In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Section 2.

Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Section 3.

Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

Section 4.

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

AMENDMENT XXVI

Passed by Congress March 23, 1971. Ratified July 1, 1971.

Note: Amendment 14, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 1 of the 26th amendment.

Section 1.

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Section 2.

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XXVII

Originally proposed Sept. 25, 1789. Ratified May 7, 1992.

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Michigan communities still opted out of adult-use marijuana sales in 2023

Michigan communities still opted out of adult-use marijuana sales in 2023

Adult-use recreational marijuana has been legal in Michigan since voters approved a ballot proposal in the 2018 election, and sales commenced in 2019. However, numerous Michigan communities have chosen not to participate.

That doesn’t mean recreational cannabis is illegal in these areas, it just means that businesses are prohibited from selling it.

Among the 1,773 municipalities in Michigan, which includes cities, villages, and townships, over 1,300 have chosen not to participate in cannabis sales and associated tax revenue.

Komorn Law is Michigan’s top cannabis law firms when it comes to licensing, consulting and legal defense.

Call them if you’re thinking about venturing into the marijuana business in Michigan (248) 357-2550

Opted Out

Here is the list of communities that have opted out.

(Please note this is an evolvoing list and changes are made often. Check it often if you need the information).

Opt IN and Opt OUT Full List

(Note this list changes and should be checked at the time of interest in licensing or doing cannabis business in Michigan)

Fight back

If you don’t want to submit and plead and want to fight for your rights.
Call our office: Komorn Law (248) 357-2550.
We have defended many cases with positive outcomes since 1993.

 

More Posts

Police say they can tell if you are too high to drive

Police say they can tell if you are too high to drive

Police say they can tell if you are too high to drive. Critics call it ‘utter nonsense’Haley Butler-Moore sped up to pass a semi on the highway when she suddenly saw the police lights. She’d left Albuquerque hours earlier, heading to a Halloween party in Denver. Tired...

read more
Compounding Charges Laws in Michigan

Compounding Charges Laws in Michigan

Understanding Compounding Charges Laws in Michigan Compounding charges refer to the illegal act of accepting or agreeing to accept a benefit in exchange for not prosecuting a crime. In Michigan, this is considered a serious offense, and the law specifically prohibits...

read more
MI Court of Appeals – MRTMA defense denied dismissal

MI Court of Appeals – MRTMA defense denied dismissal

Does the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act protect you in all Marijuana scenarios?The Conflict The central issue in this interlocutory appeal is whether the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA), MCL 333.27951 et seq., prevents a...

read more
The “Automobile Exception” in Michigan law

The “Automobile Exception” in Michigan law

The "automobile exception" in Michigan law allows police to search a vehicle without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe it contains evidence of a crime.This exception is grounded in the idea that vehicles are inherently mobile, meaning evidence could be...

read more
Carrying a Concealed Weapon in Michigan

Carrying a Concealed Weapon in Michigan

Carrying a concealed weapon (CCW) in Michigan without proper authorization is a crime.Carrying a concealed weapon (CCW) in Michigan without proper authorization can lead to serious criminal charges. Michigan law has strict regulations regarding firearms, and violating...

read more
Court rules that cannabis grows of any size is just a misdemeanor in Michigan

Court rules that cannabis grows of any size is just a misdemeanor in Michigan

According to MLive – The likelihood of black-market marijuana growers in Michigan facing full-blown, paramilitary-style raids featuring battering rams and heavily armed narcotics teams has diminished. But everyone else knows better.

Growing illegal marijuana in Michigan, even potentially thousands of plants, is only a misdemeanor crime, the state Court of Appeals ruled on Oct. 5, 2023.

Attorney Michael Komorn of the Komorn law firm specializes in cannabis defense and currently has several clients charged under felony marijuana possession laws. In light of the Court of Appeals ruling, he plans to file motions requesting those charges be reduced to misdemeanors.

Komorn said most prosecutors and police have already placed a low priority on marijuana enforcement, except for “certain pockets” of the state.

“They’ll raid like the old days, come in with guns and masks and go through that whole process,” he said, “but their dilemma is, how do we charge somebody. What, do you get charged with a misdemeanor?

 

“I have a number of cases where they’ve seized property and not charged anybody. And you can only reap the benefits of forfeiture if you get a felony conviction.”

Read the full article here at MLive

Federal Law (Oct 2023) 

Don’t count out the Feds for a good raid or two.

DEA

Under federal law, marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance, meaning that it has a high potential for abuse and no currently accepted medical use. This means that it is illegal to possess, manufacture, distribute, or dispense marijuana, except for certain research purposes.

The federal laws regarding marijuana are enforced by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). The DEA can investigate and arrest people for marijuana offenses, and it can also seize marijuana and other assets related to marijuana trafficking.

The penalties for marijuana offenses under federal law can be severe. For example, possession of marijuana can be punished by up to one year in prison and a fine of up to $1,000. Manufacturing, distributing, or dispensing marijuana can be punished by up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000.

However, it is important to note that the federal laws regarding marijuana are in conflict with the laws of many states. In recent years, a growing number of states have legalized marijuana for medical or recreational use. Despite the state laws, marijuana remains illegal under federal law.

This conflict between federal and state law has created a number of challenges for law enforcement and the marijuana industry. For example, it is unclear whether federal law enforcement officials can arrest people who are using or selling marijuana in states where it is legal. Additionally, the legal marijuana industry has difficulty accessing banking services and other financial resources, because banks are afraid of violating federal law.

There is a growing movement to reform the federal laws regarding marijuana. A number of bills have been introduced in Congress that would legalize marijuana at the federal level or deschedule it from the Controlled Substances Act. However, it is unclear whether any of these bills will be passed into law.

In the meantime, the conflict between federal and state law remains. People who use or sell marijuana in states where it is legal should be aware that they are still violating federal law.

Don’t tell that to the taxman though – See section 280E of the IRS code.

 

taxing illegal activities-is that even legal

 

Michigan

Michigan has seen a rise in “illegal” marijuana grows in recent years, despite the state’s legalization of recreational and medical marijuana in 2018. These grows are often large-scale operations that operate without a license and violate state laws.

There are several reasons why individuals may choose to engage in illegal marijuana cultivation. Some individuals may opt for this path to evade taxation on their marijuana sales, while others may partake in the black market trade. Additionally, certain individuals may unknowingly cultivate marijuana illegally due to a lack of awareness regarding their state’s marijuana laws.

Cannabis grows can have a number of negative consequences. They can be a nuisance to neighbors, due to the smell of marijuana and the increased traffic in and out of the property.

Cannabis grows can also be a public safety hazard, as they may use dangerous chemicals and electrical equipment. Additionally, these alleged illegal grows can contribute to the black market for marijuana.

The Michigan State Police (MSP) is responsible for investigating illegal marijuana grows in the state. The MSP has a dedicated Marijuana and Tobacco Investigation Section (MTIS) that investigates these crimes.

In recent years, MTIS has conducted hundreds of investigations and seized millions of dollars worth of marijuana from illegal grows.

You can find out what time it is by calling 202-762-1401.

 

If you are thinking about growing marijuana in Michigan, it is important to make sure that you are doing so legally. You can find more information about Michigan’s marijuana laws on the website of the Michigan Cannabis Regulatory Agency or consult an experienced law firm regarding cannabis licensing in Michigan such a Komorn Law.

Fight back

If you don’t want to submit and plead and want to fight for your rights.
Call our office: Komorn Law (248) 357-2550.
We have defended many of these cases with positive outcomes.

 

Did You Know

Michigan State Police Legal Updates

MSP Legal Update No. 153 (01/2023)

  • Search & Seizure: The smell of marihuana, standing alone, no longer constitutes probable cause to search for that substance
  • Vehicle Code: Violation for impeding traffic requires evidence the accused’s conduct actually affected the normal flow of traffic.

Legal Update No. 153 (01/2023)

 

MSP Legal Update No. 150 (01/2022)

  • Vehicle Code: Persons under the age of 21 may be prosecuted for operating a motor vehicle with the presence of marihuana in their system
  • Criminal Law: Ethnic intimidation based on gender includes harassing or intimidating another person because of the actual or perceived gender of that person.

Legal Update No. 150 (01/2022)

 

MSP Legal Update No. 149 (10/2021)

  • Search & Seizure: Persons have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their property against “drone” surveillance conducted without a warrant or pursuant to a recognized exception to the warrant requirement
  • Search & Seizure: The “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement does not extend to the home.

Legal Update No. 149 (10/2021)

More Posts

Police say they can tell if you are too high to drive

Police say they can tell if you are too high to drive

Police say they can tell if you are too high to drive. Critics call it ‘utter nonsense’Haley Butler-Moore sped up to pass a semi on the highway when she suddenly saw the police lights. She’d left Albuquerque hours earlier, heading to a Halloween party in Denver. Tired...

read more
Compounding Charges Laws in Michigan

Compounding Charges Laws in Michigan

Understanding Compounding Charges Laws in Michigan Compounding charges refer to the illegal act of accepting or agreeing to accept a benefit in exchange for not prosecuting a crime. In Michigan, this is considered a serious offense, and the law specifically prohibits...

read more
MI Court of Appeals – MRTMA defense denied dismissal

MI Court of Appeals – MRTMA defense denied dismissal

Does the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act protect you in all Marijuana scenarios?The Conflict The central issue in this interlocutory appeal is whether the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA), MCL 333.27951 et seq., prevents a...

read more
The “Automobile Exception” in Michigan law

The “Automobile Exception” in Michigan law

The "automobile exception" in Michigan law allows police to search a vehicle without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe it contains evidence of a crime.This exception is grounded in the idea that vehicles are inherently mobile, meaning evidence could be...

read more
Carrying a Concealed Weapon in Michigan

Carrying a Concealed Weapon in Michigan

Carrying a concealed weapon (CCW) in Michigan without proper authorization is a crime.Carrying a concealed weapon (CCW) in Michigan without proper authorization can lead to serious criminal charges. Michigan law has strict regulations regarding firearms, and violating...

read more
400K settlement after being arrested for a DUI, even though he passed breath and blood tests

400K settlement after being arrested for a DUI, even though he passed breath and blood tests

A Colorado man is poised to receive a $400,000 settlement from city authorities after being wrongfully arrested for a DUI, even though he had passed both a breath and blood test.

According to the complaint, Elias was driving southbound on College Avenue in Fort Collins around 10:30 p.m. on Jan. 4, 2020. He was heading home after leaving his girlfriend’s house following a dinner party. Upon passing the intersection of Swallow Road and College Avenue, he slowed down to ensure he hadn’t missed his intended turn to the east.

After realizing he had not missed his turn, he accelerated again but observed a car following closely in an aggressive manner.

According to the complaint, Elias then signaled a lane change to the left lane, aiming to clear the driver’s path. It is mentioned that he executed the lane change normally, lawfully, and without encountering any issues.

Gates, who was driving the car, was working that night as a member of the then-recently formed Reduce All Impaired Driving inter-police agency task force looking for drunk or impaired drivers.

The complaint claims that Gates had been roving the streets of Larimer County that night “with the sole task of looking for and charging citizens with DUIs.”

“Gates does so because this is one of the most difficult allegations to disprove, given that Loveland PD does not employ dash cams (only bodycams) and so never capture the arrested individual’s actual driving,” the complaint reads.

Gates allegedly then began to question Elias on whether he had been drinking that night.

According to the complaint Elias was taken aback by this but remained steadfast that he had not committed a violation.

Gates then allegedly said he could smell an “overwhelming odor of alcohol” coming from the vehicle — the complaint disputes this claim.

Following continued questions, Elias invoked his right to remain silent and said he was not going to answer Gates’ questions.

The complaint claims that Gates did not have probable cause to continue to detain Elias at this point.

“But Officer Gates worked at the Loveland Police Department,” the complaint reads. “And LPD had a custom for the treatment of any person who refused to submit to their authority and questioning: They would be arrested.”

Elias declined to participate in a roadside test and made it clear that he would not provide any answers to Gates’ inquiries, as stated in the complaint.

He was subsequently taken to the nearby police station on suspicion of driving under the influence, according to the information provided. It is important to note that no drugs or alcohol were discovered in Elias’ vehicle, as stated in the lawsuit.

Elias’s breath test at the station yielded a 0% blood alcohol content reading, as stated in the lawsuit.

“I’m not going to play this game,” Gates told Elias, per bodycam footage posted by Elias’ attorney.

“I’m not playing a game, this is my freedom you’re talking about,” Elias responded.

Police then instructed Elias to undergo a blood test, which, according to the lawsuit, yielded negative results for all substances tested in March 2020.

Elias underwent an investigation of his pilot’s license by the Federal Aviation Administration due to the DUI arrest, as stated in the complaint.

Allegations have been made regarding Loveland Police Department officers engaging in a competitive environment amongst themselves and with other police departments, focusing on the number of DUI arrests made.

Elias’ attorney Sarah Schielke cited social media posts from a Facebook page, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, which promoted a timed competition for the most DUI arrests between departments.

Schielke has shared screenshots of an independent assessment conducted by Jensen Hughes, a private consultancy firm, in 2021.

According to the assessment, it was stated that officers from the Loveland Police Department prioritize DUI arrests over attending to other calls.

Elias’ attorney Sarah Schielke released a YouTube video.

Have you been arrested or charged with DUI?

Charged with a Crime?
Lost Your License?
Conspiracy or CCE?
Thought Crimes?

Call Our Office for a Free Case Evaluation

Notably, Elias claims to have experienced another unjust DUI arrest in Fort Collins, a neighboring municipality to Loveland.

A separate lawsuit he filed against Fort Collins officers in May stated that he was arrested on December 2, 2021 and subsequently spent three days in jail, once again on suspicion of a DUI offense.

He had also successfully undergone a breath test and blood test, with both yielding negative results.

Elias had a child abuse report filed against him by an officer because his 15-year-old son was in his car, and he was prohibited by a judge from driving anyone under 18 for that time period, according to the lawsuit.

When Elias’ test results returned negative weeks later, the lawsuit stated that the case was dismissed.

It also alleges that the Fort Collins Police Department fosters a culture of vying for DUI arrests.

It’s remarkable that it happened to me twice,” Elias shared with CBS News. “I find it surprising that more individuals didn’t experience it twice. Their sole concern seemed to be adding another tally to their list, and I just happened to pass by on two occasions.

Read More Here: The Reporter Herald 

Here are some YouTube videos regarding the case

He’s Not Alone !!

Then there is the other side of it all

DISCLAIMER
This post may contain re-posted content, opinions, comments, ads, third party posts, outdated information, posts from disgruntled persons, posts from those with agendas and general internet BS. Therefore…Before you believe anything on the internet regarding anything – do your research on Official Government and State Sites, Call the Michigan State Police, Check the State Attorney General Website and Consult an Attorney – Use Your Brain.

THC Detection in Blood: Challenges and Implications

THC Detection in Blood: Challenges and Implications

THC Detection in Blood: Challenges and Implications When it comes to enforcing drugged driving laws, police and employers face a unique challenge with marijuana. Unlike alcohol, which is metabolized and eliminated relatively quickly, THC, the psychoactive compound in...

THC Detection in Blood: A Comprehensive Review

THC Detection in Blood: A Comprehensive Review

THC Detection in Blood: A Comprehensive Review Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main psychoactive compound in marijuana, can remain detectable in the blood for several days or even weeks after use. This is due to the fact that THC is highly fat-soluble, meaning that it...

Ignition Interlock Devices – What you should know

Ignition Interlock Devices – What you should know

Ignition interlock devices (IIDs) are becoming increasingly common in the state of Michigan. An IID is a device that is installed in a vehicle and prevents the engine from starting unless the driver blows a breathalyzer test and their blood alcohol content (BAC) is...

Bad Ranking For Transparency in the Michigan Justice System

Bad Ranking For Transparency in the Michigan Justice System

by Wes Smith, president, MPA Board of Directors
Publisher View Newspaper Group

When there was a change in leadership in Michigan’s legislature earlier this year, hope rose again in the hearts of citizens who want a more transparent state government.

Maybe, it was thought by those citizens, the time has finally come for Michigan to join almost every other state in expecting their legislature and Governor to be subject to our open records law. Maybe, they thought, adding hope upon hope, new laws would be passed requiring other government officials to respond to records requests in a timely manner without outrageous fees. But, alas, it’s nearly November and there has not been even a small ray of sunshine in our state house or governor’s mansion.

Michigan remains at the bottom of the bottom for government openness among the fifty states. The Center for Public Integrity gave the Great Lakes State an “F” grade in 2015. In 2020 Michigan ranked 47th out of 50 for anti-corruption measures for public officials according to the Coalition for Integrity.

News reports of former House Speaker Johnson convicted of accepting bribes and Inkster Mayor Wimberly indicted on bribery charges, along with numerous other accounts of unethical behavior on the part of elected officials in our state, illustrate the importance of openness and transparency in government. 

In 2022 Michigan voters overwhelmingly supported a ballot initiative to require state elected officials to provide financial disclosure statements. In a recent study, done on behalf of the Michigan Press Association, there was more data showing Michigan voters want more information about what their elected officials are doing. Nearly 9 out of 10 Michigan adults believe that taxpayers should have access to the meeting calendars of state representatives and their correspondence with outside organizations as well as the budgets of these office holders.

Read the rest here at LegalNews

“When you got something to hide… You got something to hide” DW

Copy, Paste, Legislate beta

Do you know if a bill introduced in your statehouse — it might govern who can fix your shattered iPhone screen or whether you can still sue a pedophile priest years later — was actually written by your elected lawmakers? Use this new tool to find out.

Spoiler alert The answer may well be no.

Thousands of pieces of “model legislation” are drafted each year by business organizations and special interest groups and distributed to state lawmakers for introduction.

These copycat bills influence policymaking across the nation, state by state, often with little scrutiny.

This news application was developed by the Center for Public Integrity, part of a year-long collaboration with USA TODAY and the Arizona Republic to bring the practice into the light.

Check it out here

https://model-legislation.apps.publicintegrity.org/

More Posts

Michigan Law on Boating Under the Influence

Michigan Law on Boating Under the Influence

Michigan Laws on Boating Under the InfluenceBoating is a fun activity, but it can be dangerous if the operator is under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Michigan law prohibits operating a motorboat while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Boating Under the...

read more
MICHIGAN MEDICAL MARIHUANA ACT – Section 4 Defense

MICHIGAN MEDICAL MARIHUANA ACT – Section 4 Defense

Marijuana Criminal Defense Client with medical marijuana card was charged with marijuana possession. Client was assigned a court appointed lawyer and encouraged to plead guilty and accept 3 months of probation. Client hired Michael Komorn for representation and...

read more
Michigan Methamphetamine Defense

Michigan Methamphetamine Defense

  Bill Schuette, the current Michigan Attorney General, is waging war against Meth users, dealers and labs. Innocent people get swept up with meth crimes when police run field tests on any powdery substances, frequently returning false positive results. Komorn...

read more

MMMA-Profile-Michael-Komorn

  Here are some links to articles posted by Attorney Michael Komorn   US Government Collecting and Using Citizen Communications NATIONAL TOXICOLOGY PROGRAM Technical Report Series No. 446 (1996) Oral cannabis extracts as a promising treatment for the core...

read more
Komorn Law – Victory in Genesee County

Komorn Law – Victory in Genesee County

Komorn Law PLLC is proud to report a ruling today from the Genesee County Circuit Court.   This case involved my client's property and all kinds of salacious allegations of really bad behavior by this property, and I mean bad stuff, like stuff you could never...

read more
Komorn Law-In the News-Fox17

Komorn Law-In the News-Fox17

Komorn Law | In the News | Fox 17 News | Links   Medical marijuana battle: Father fights for custody of son OTTAWA COUNTY, Mich. – Medical marijuana is a controversial, sometimes sticky issue, especially in Michigan. Max Lorincz is a father from Spring Lake who...

read more

AVVO Ratings and Reviews Update Aug 2016

Michael Komorn’s reviews   5.0 stars - 23 Total Avvo Rating: 10.0 out of 10     Cases dismissed 5.0 stars Posted by Ryan August 24, 2016 I had two charges in Wayne county. I was facing 6 years in prison. Michael was very informative and reassuring...

read more
Commission Votes For Retroactive Sentencing

Commission Votes For Retroactive Sentencing

U.S. SENTENCING COMMISSION VOTES TO ALLOW RETROACTIVE SENTENCE REDUCTIONS AND ANNOUNCES ITS NEXT SET OF POLICY PRIORITIES

Vote Authorizes Judges to Reduce Sentences for Eligible Incarcerated Persons Beginning February 1, 2024 Should Guidelines Become Effective

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today the Commission, by a majority vote, allowed for delayed retroactive application of Amendment 821 relating to criminal history—meaning that certain currently incarcerated individuals could be eligible for reduced sentences made effective beginning on February 1, 2024 (unofficial text). The Commission also adopted its next set of policy priorities that include, among other things, reviewing and potentially amending how the guidelines treat acquitted conduct for purposes of sentencing as well as assessing the degree to which certain Bureau of Prisons practices are effective in meeting the purposes of sentencing.

Equipped with a quorum of commissioners for the first time since 2018, the Commission voted in April to promulgate amendments to the federal sentencing guidelines—including Amendment 821 providing for targeted, evidence-based changes to certain criminal history rules. Because two parts of that amendment reduce the sentencing range of future defendants, the Commission is required by law to consider whether judges can extend those reductions to previously sentenced individuals.

The Commission voted to delay implementation of any order granting such reduced sentences to ensure that, to the extent practicable, all individuals who are to be released have the opportunity to participate in reentry programs and transitional services that will increase the likelihood of successful reentry to society.

U.S. District Judge Carlton W. Reeves, Chair of the Commission said, “Our decision today is one that brings hope to thousands of currently incarcerated people and their families. We listened to a full spectrum of views and considered the full costs associated with incarceration balanced with the time needed to review petitions and prepare for successful reentry.”

Part A of Amendment 821 limits the overall criminal history impact of “Status Points” at §4A1.1. Part B, Subpart 1 of Amendment 821 creates a new Chapter Four guideline at §4C1.1 decreasing by two the offense levels for defendants who did not receive any criminal history points and whose instant offense did not involve specific aggravating factors.

Judge Reeves added, “These prospective changes to the criminal history rules made by the Commission in April reflect evidence-based policy determinations that apply with equal force to previously sentenced individuals. Applying these changes retroactively will increase fairness in sentencing. At the same time, the 3-month delay will help ensure that individuals released based on our decision today receive the benefit of reentry programs and transitional services essential to support their successful reentry to society, which at the same time promotes public safety.”

The Commission estimated in its July 2023 Impact Analysis that retroactive application would carry a meaningful impact for many currently incarcerated individuals:

11,495 incarcerated individuals will have a lower sentencing range under Part A of Amendment 821 relating to “Status Points” with a possible sentence reduction of 11.7%, on average.

7,272 incarcerated individuals would be eligible for a lower sentencing range based upon the established criteria under Part B of Amendment 821 relating to “Zero-Point Offenders” with a possible sentence reduction of 17.6%, on average.
Today’s vote concludes two months of deliberations and the first amendment year of policy work for the commissioners, who were all confirmed last August. As part of its deliberations, the Commission received expert testimony and public comment from a wide spectrum of stakeholders, including senators, judges, lawyers, religious leaders, doctors, professors, advocates, victims, families, and incarcerated individuals.

Have you been arrested or charged with DUI?

Charged with a Crime?
Lost Your License?
Conspiracy or CCE?
Thought Crimes?

Call Our Office for a Free Case Evaluation

This year’s guideline amendments are with Congress for a 180-day review period ending November 1, 2023. If Congress does not act to disapprove the amendments, courts can begin considering petitions for sentence reductions and could order a reduced term of imprisonment effective February 1, 2024 or later.

Today, the Commission also finalized policy priorities for the amendment year ending May 1, 2024. In light of the 40th anniversary of the Sentencing Reform Act (SRA), the Commission anticipates undertaking a number of projects examining the degree to which current sentencing, penal, and correctional practices are effective in meeting the purposes of sentencing as set forth in the SRA.

Among these issues, the Commission will work to assess the degree to which certain practices of the Bureau of Prisons are effective in meeting the purposes of sentencing as set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). The Commission will also compile and disseminate information on court-sponsored programs relating to diversion, alternatives-to-incarceration, and reentry.

The Commission will also review and potentially amend how the guidelines treat acquitted conduct for purposes of sentencing. The Supreme Court recently denied several petitions for writs of certiorari related to the use of acquitted conduct. In issuing the denials, three Justices supported the denial to allow the Commission more time to address the issue. “Last year’s amendment cycle was busy and abbreviated. The Commission appreciates the opportunity to give proper attention to acquitted conduct, and we will do so this year,” said Judge Reeves.

The Commission will continue to examine the career offender guidelines, including updating the data analyses and statutory recommendations made in the Commission’s 2016 report to Congress entitled Career Offender Sentencing Enhancements. The Commission will also continue its consideration of alternative approaches to the “categorical approach” through workshops convened to discuss the scope and impact of the career offender penalty enhancements.

The Commission will further continue its research agenda through examination of various issues, including methamphetamine offenses, sentencing differences for cases disposed of through trial versus plea, and sentences involving youthful individuals.

The Commission invited public comment on its tentative list of policy priorities in June. “We are grateful for the volume of comment the Commission received regarding priorities for the coming year,” said Chair Reeves. “We look forward to continued input from the public as we work through this year’s priorities.” A compilation of public comment can be reviewed here.

Visit www.ussc.gov for more information about the amendment process and the changes approved today.

More Posts

Michigan Law on Boating Under the Influence

Michigan Law on Boating Under the Influence

Michigan Laws on Boating Under the InfluenceBoating is a fun activity, but it can be dangerous if the operator is under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Michigan law prohibits operating a motorboat while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Boating Under the...

read more
MICHIGAN MEDICAL MARIHUANA ACT – Section 4 Defense

MICHIGAN MEDICAL MARIHUANA ACT – Section 4 Defense

Marijuana Criminal Defense Client with medical marijuana card was charged with marijuana possession. Client was assigned a court appointed lawyer and encouraged to plead guilty and accept 3 months of probation. Client hired Michael Komorn for representation and...

read more
Michigan Methamphetamine Defense

Michigan Methamphetamine Defense

  Bill Schuette, the current Michigan Attorney General, is waging war against Meth users, dealers and labs. Innocent people get swept up with meth crimes when police run field tests on any powdery substances, frequently returning false positive results. Komorn...

read more

MMMA-Profile-Michael-Komorn

  Here are some links to articles posted by Attorney Michael Komorn   US Government Collecting and Using Citizen Communications NATIONAL TOXICOLOGY PROGRAM Technical Report Series No. 446 (1996) Oral cannabis extracts as a promising treatment for the core...

read more
Komorn Law – Victory in Genesee County

Komorn Law – Victory in Genesee County

Komorn Law PLLC is proud to report a ruling today from the Genesee County Circuit Court.   This case involved my client's property and all kinds of salacious allegations of really bad behavior by this property, and I mean bad stuff, like stuff you could never...

read more
Komorn Law-In the News-Fox17

Komorn Law-In the News-Fox17

Komorn Law | In the News | Fox 17 News | Links   Medical marijuana battle: Father fights for custody of son OTTAWA COUNTY, Mich. – Medical marijuana is a controversial, sometimes sticky issue, especially in Michigan. Max Lorincz is a father from Spring Lake who...

read more

AVVO Ratings and Reviews Update Aug 2016

Michael Komorn’s reviews   5.0 stars - 23 Total Avvo Rating: 10.0 out of 10     Cases dismissed 5.0 stars Posted by Ryan August 24, 2016 I had two charges in Wayne county. I was facing 6 years in prison. Michael was very informative and reassuring...

read more