| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Lurid Crime Tales- |
| SCOTUS - Local Police Cannot Choose To Enforce Federal Law Contrary To State Law |
| 2008-12-03 |
| The U.S. Supreme Court refused to review a landmark decision today in which California state courts found that its medical marijuana law was not preempted by federal law. The state appellate court decision from November 28, 2007, ruled that "it is not the job of the local police to enforce the federal drug laws." The case, involving Felix Kha, a medical marijuana patient from Garden Grove, was the result of a wrongful seizure of medical marijuana by local police in June 2005. "It's now settled that state law enforcement officers cannot arrest medical marijuana patients or seize their medicine simply because they prefer the contrary federal law," said Joe Elford, Chief Counsel with Americans for Safe Access (ASA), the medical marijuana advocacy organization that represented the defendant Felix Kha in a case that the City of Garden Grove appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. "Perhaps, in the future local government will think twice about expending significant time and resources to defy a law that is overwhelmingly supported by the people of our state." |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #13 Mmmm, Commerce Clause. Is there *anything* it doesn't apply to? |
| Posted by: SteveS 2008-12-03 17:57 |
| #12 How wide/narrow is the ruling? Any impact on, say, immigration enforcement? |
| Posted by: Grenter, Protector of the Geats 2008-12-03 16:34 |
| #11 P2K, my argument with this is that the reasoning SCOTUS uses is contained in Commerce Clause. Clearly, the Commerce Clause would not apply to Civil Rights. I'd say that is comparing apples to oranges. I just don't see how growing pot in your backyard for your own 'medical' use falls under interstate commerce. Also, please note, I am not a supporter of 'medical' mj, but I am a proponent of States Rights. |
| Posted by: AllahHateMe 2008-12-03 13:41 |
| #10 One of the most clever instances of giving a party what they want at a price they can't afford since Marbury v. Madison. Nonetheless, I expect the changes in the next 10 years will make this decision moot. Just as these United States became the United States after the civil war and the legislative power of the Congress became unconstrained after the switch in time that saved nine, I expect the transition of the states to administrative appurtenances of the federal executive to be complete within the decade. That is why I object to the domestic use of Federal troops for any reason including the enforcement of school attendance policies. This is a slippery slope and I doubt this opinion will be sufficient to prevent or even delay our descent. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-12-03 10:50 |
| #9 The question becomes "Can the feds enforce federal law in a State that doesn't accept the law?" That's why the Donks demanded and got the removal of federal troops from the South over the Hayes-Tilden election compromise. Then insured they wouldn't return with the passage of Posse Comitatus. It's also one of the major reasons the blacks lost their 14th and 15th Amendment rights for nearly a hundred years. Just remember the continuation of your arguement is that if State Rights are not constrained they can also trump individual civil rights. Otherwise we're engaged in picking and choosing what we want, which is basically a game of power not principle. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-12-03 10:06 |
| #8 I believe the line should be drawn at trade over state lines. If someone is just using/selling at state level, then the state takes care of it. Going over state lines, you can guarantee the FBI will be there to smack you down. Of course, the local state asking the FBI to help with a case is always allowed and can help track down a web of interstate and international crime as well. Basically, I believe that if a state wants to legalize something, the Feds have no right to step in and force it on them. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-12-03 10:05 |
| #7 The downside of this is that it will require a much larger federal police force. The question becomes "Can the feds enforce federal law in a State that doesn't accept the law?" To this point could the FBI have arrested Mr. Kha? I'm a firm supporter of Federalism and the 10th but after a century of galloping central government where and how are the lines to be drawn? |
| Posted by: AlanC 2008-12-03 09:55 |
| #6 You can't be for States rights and then think that the Federal government can trump any and all state laws. I am and always will be a States rights supporter. So if the (not so)Good people of California want medical mj, that's their right. In my most unlearned opinion the courts use of the Commerce Clause is a reach. But, they have spoken and that's the law. States' Rights have consistently been eroded away and will probably just get worse under Nobama. |
| Posted by: AllahHateMe 2008-12-03 09:52 |
| #5 I think if the federal govt. should enforce their own federal laws, if they can. Otherwise, almost everything has a state criminal/civil version. If the hippies and cancer patients in Calif. want to get loaded I really don't care, there are much worse things going on in CA than Felix Kha smoking his skull bong and watching Gilligan's Island all day. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2008-12-03 09:46 |
| #4 Steve: Ref Prop 215; Take a read of the 2005 decision Gonzales v. Raich. Bottom line, interstate Commerce Clause as well as the Necessary and Proper Clause both apply. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2008-12-03 09:28 |
| #3 Sovereign California, a very interesting precedent. Well, we *are* the United States of America, after all. US Constitution - Bill of Rights - Amendment 10 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. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2008-12-03 09:02 |
| #2 Yes, but the usual leverage for 'non-participation' is the withholding of funding. Wonder what concessions Congress will extract from CA with Arnold shows up like the Big 3 asking for the big |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-12-03 08:02 |
| #1 Sovereign California, a very interesting precedent. One which may open the door for many for the State(s) trumping of other Federal statutes and laws, not the least of which may involve revenue sharing, immigration, military service, and taxes. Events at the University of Alabama in June of 1963 involving Gov Geo Wallace might point to something of a conflict in Federal legal views. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2008-12-03 07:38 |