Whether the federal prohibition on the cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana violates the petitioner's constitutional rights, including due process and liberty interests

QUESTION PRESENTED Eduardo Pineda petitions for writ of habeas corpus from Associate Justice | Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court of the United States. “In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local | cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana.” Gonzales v. Raich 545 U. S. 1 (2005) Justice Thomas dissent Sec, A 2"4 par. Last sentence. “The writ of habeas corpus . . . is the liberation of those who may be imprisoned without sufficient cause. Ex Parte Watkins, 28 U.S. 193, 202 (1830) Chief Justice Marshall. |. THE QUESTION is whether being incarcerated a substantial denial of Petitioner's constitutional right of liberty, without “sufficient cause,” without compelling reasons for the United States Congress to proscribe marijuana as a dangerous substance, therefore without due process of law in violation of Amendments IV and V of the Constitution of the United States and unconstitutional. i | | Il.