Colorado Openly Repudiates Federal Law

Legal marijuana sales begin in Colorado, making history | LA Times

So we have a state government acting in direct violation of federal drug laws which criminalize marijuana. I guess federal law is no longer "supreme" in the US?

 

Don't forget Washington is also part of this now too. If more states pass laws legalizing pot, it will be a domino effect and the end of the war on pot as we know it. No doubt there will be problems from both sides of the system, but the Justice Department has agreed to back off and let the states try to work it out for now.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/16/states-can-legalize-marijuana-though-fed

"Although the federal government may use its power of the purse to encourage states to adopt certain criminal laws, the federal government is limited in its ability to directly influence state policy by the Tenth Amendment, which prevents the federal government from directing states to enact specific legislation, or requiring state officials to enforce federal law. As such, the fact that the federal government has criminalized conduct does not mean that the state, in turn, must also criminalize or prosecute that same conduct.

Cort decisions have been clear on this point, add Garvey and Yeh, emphasizing that "nder both Tenth Amendment and preemption principles, federal and state courts have previously held that a state’s decision to simply permit what the federal government prohibits does not create a 'positive conflict' with federal law."

This doesn't mean that engagers in activities formally forbidden by D.C. are home-free, however, since "[t]he federal government remains free to expend its own resources to implement and enforce its own law, regardless of whether the state chooses to criminalize that same conduct." The authors acknowledge, however, that most of the would-be enforcers work at the state and local level, leaving the feds a tad short-handed when it comes to busting growers, sellers and smokers of marijuana.

Thus far federalism takes the states, but perhaps not much farther. Washington and Colorado both envision bureaucratic regulatory and licensing regimes for marijuana, and that goes well beyond declining to enforce federal law and likely sets up an actual conflict with federal objectives. The states might be able to overcome such objections, however, continue Garvey and Yeh, by arguing that regulations limit access to marijuana or simply help to enforce compliance with state law. Whether that would fly would have to be determined in court."

I think it's a good change my self, only the prison industry is getting rich off the war on drugs.

 

The Justice Department has already said months ago that they will not go after prosecutions and let the states handle it.

 

Actually dozens of states with medical marijuana laws have been doing this for years.

 

Our federal Congress is only delegated the social Power to legislate, "in all cases whatsoever" in the federal districts.

 

So does this mean that states can openly flout federal law now? Because that's exactly what they're doing.

 

I didn't realize the Justice Department could sanction state laws that explicitly overturn federal laws. I was under the impression that federal law was supreme and that to attempt to legislatively nullify or override it at the state level is tantamount to treason or rebellion. Now we have two states which have passed laws that do just that, and the Obama administration has said it is okay to do that. So, if South Carolina decides to overturn Obamacare in South Carolina, the way Colorado and Washington have done in regards to federal drug law in their states, the Obama administration will have no reason to complain or say things like "it's the law".

Okay, so federal law is not actually "supreme" then, as I have so often heard claimed by progressives.

 

Our federal Congress is only delegated the social Power to legislate, "in all cases whatsoever" in the federal districts.

 

The fact that the Feds choose not to prosecute something in no way nullifies the supremacy clause in the Constitution. Laws are rarely uniformly enforced.

 

Not following the law, like a jaywalker does, is much different than setting up your own police station with its own set of laws.

 

The Executive Branch has such discretion.

 

Is this one of those cases?

Why are they engaging in this kind of selective enforcement? If a state legalizes voluntary taxation, won't they be able to argue a fourteenth amendment violation if they're singled out while Colorado and Washington brazenly flout federal law?

 

I didn't realize they could choose to ignore a state government creating an independent system of law that is explicitly at odds with extant federal laws. Good to know!

 

Yes, they can look at the situation carefully and decide if they will choose to ignore State law based on the Supremacy Clause.

many times they do, this time they won't.

now, if the State law allowed teenagers to smoke weed, Im sure the Feds would step in.

 

Yes and no. I happen to think that Federal drug laws that don't apply to import/export are unconstitutional- but that is my personal opinion- and the courts have disagreed. As long as the courts find the law constitutional, then yes the Feds have that power.

Because it is a waste of Federal resources to enforce. While I think the drug war is a huge failure- if drug enforcement is going to happen- then it should be focused on the violent drug criminals.

If a state legalized voluntary state taxes- why would the Feds care?

If the state tried to change Federal income tax laws, yes the Feds would come down like a ton of bricks- because that would actually affect the operation of the Federal government.

Selective enforcement- yes it happens- and happens all the time.

 

Federal law says that marijuana is illegal. The State of Colorado is in the United States of America, which is part of the Federal government's jurisdiction. The State of Colorado has passed a piece of legislation that legalizes marijuana in Colorado, which is, again, part of the Federal government's jurisdiction. That would be like me legalizing crack in my basement and having the Chicago police do nothing about it.

 

Hey, you learn something new everyday. Apparently, progressives think it is okay for a state government to legislatively repudiate federal laws in some cases. Not sure what cases those are, but they exist! Hopefully defenders of liberty will take this obvious and ridiculously inconsistent standard and push it through the court system. Why should Colorado get to flout federal law while others are forced to abide by it? That's a clear violation of the equal protection clause.

 

I believe it may have been merely, a lack of energy on the part of the chief magistrates of the State; especially when compared and contrasted to actions taken against the private sector, with even less recourse to wealth.

 

Planning my trip see my brother in Colorado!!!!!

 

So, whatever the supreme court says is constitutional, is constitutional?

So is most of what the federal government does.

I agree, and I'm not against prosecutorial discretion, but this, to me, goes beyond simply breaking the law. This is an attempt to overturn or nullify the law, and they have effectively succeeded. The feds are backing down, not because they lack the will or desire to enforce these drug laws, but because they recognize, on some level, that they are not really "supreme" in any meaningful sense of the word. Without the cooperation and consent of the states, the federal authorities are nothing more than empty figureheads. Hopefully, more and more Americans will start to realize this and lobby their state and local governments for more political autonomy from Washington DC.

Because federal income taxes are not voluntary.

And that state would be able to sue the federal government for violating their fourteenth amendment right to equal protection under the law. It would be no different than a police force arresting black law-breakers while purposely ignoring white law-breakers.

You treasonous rebel! How dare you state your intention to violate supreme federal law! Don't you realize that technically it is still illegal in Colorado?

 

Well, that's what government's do, right? And they have NEVER uniformly enforced laws at the Federal, state or local level. This is no different. The two states (rightfully) made weed legal and the Feds decided to honor that by not enforcing Federal law there. But that does not mean Federal Law is not supreme. They could enforce the law if they wanted to.

 

Legally yes- I think the ruling in Citizen's United was completely wrong- but until either the court changes its ruling or the Constitution is amended then that decision stands.

Well you are welcome to your opinion.

 

It's not about whether or not they could, I know they could, it's about whether or not they should according to their own internal standards of ethics and law that they expect everyone else to adhere to. Every time a state tries to legislatively override or nullify some aspect of federal gun control or Obamacare, I hear progressives and Obama supporters talk about the supremacy of the federal government and that something should or will be done about the "rebellious" types who are resistant towards federal encroachment, but now that two progressive states like Colorado and Washington have legislatively overridden federal drug law, the Obama administration essentially sanctions the act by standing aside and allowing it to happen. They admit that this is selective enforcement of federal law. Okay, then that's a clear violation of the fourteenth amendment which guarantees to every citizen equal protection under the law. Why should citizens in Colorado and Washington get effective exemptions from federal law that citizens elsewhere do not enjoy?

 

And what legal document or theory are you basing this on?

There is nothing in the constitution which says that the supreme court's decisions are necessarily even legally binding, let alone a definitive arbitration of the constitution itself.