Posted on 08/16/2016 8:25:03 PM PDT by aimhigh
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court on Tuesday banned the Justice Department from prosecuting medical marijuana cases if no state laws were broken.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ordered the federal agency to show that 10 pending cases in California and Washington state violated medical marijuana laws in those states before continuing with prosecutions.
(Excerpt) Read more at oregonlive.com ...
-PJ
So what to do when the court breaks the law?
impeach every one of those ‘judges’. They committed crimes against the USA by refusing to support the laws of the USA.
After reading the above comments I stand corrected. I did not realize that congress screwed up by not allowing the enforcement of federal laws in this issue.
I wish it was a 10th Amendment ruling, but it is not.
The goodle 9th... sheesh... it is it hashsheesh...
>
So the court was just enforcing a federal law. Not vindicating states rights.
>
Yeah, let’s not go *nuts* here now. That’s just crazy talk!
>
It would have been a better decision had it been based on the commerce clause. But the Supreme Court ruled against that approach a while back.
>
Commerce? How ‘bout the 9th/10th instead?
Someone might start to say, “Regulate in 2nd (vs. infringed) = Regulate elsewhere? Hey, that can’t be the *same*”,
As if Fedzilla has ANY authority within CA to begin....for any number of ‘issues’. Ahhhh, they went down THAT path and the whole house-of-cards could have begun falling down.
The problem with any law that alienates the state from the federal control puts is in violation of the Constitution. Article VI of the Constitution makes federal law “the supreme law of the land.” The only way to keep the feds out of an inquiry to investigation is to determine that the perpetrator has violated a law not within the scope of the feds. Otherwise, they can step in any time they want. An example of this is the, so called, hate crimes. So any deviation of the scope of the federal government will create a slippery slope and all crimes become suspect at that time. Illegal drug use is within the scope of the feds.
red
Only if you support laws based on Wickard as being in pursuance of the Constitution.
If illegal drug use is fedgov business, then so is every program based on the expansive Commerce Clause => health care, education, the environment and just about every aspect of our daily lives.
So do you think all that is within the scope of the feds?
“Commerce? How ‘bout the 9th/10th instead?”
Well, those work together. If it’s not an enumerated power (commerce, for example) then it’s reserved to the states or the citizens. So if you talk about the Commerce Clause, you are talking about the 9th and 10th also.
Hinchey-Rohrabacher medical marijuana amendment, federal legislation passed in 2014, is supposed to prohibit the feds from interfering with local states medical marijuana.
It's the FEDS who apparently are ignoring federal law.
>
Well, those work together. If it’s not an enumerated power (commerce, for example) then it’s reserved to the states or the citizens. So if you talk about the Commerce Clause, you are talking about the 9th and 10th also.
>
IMO, we’re debating over the same word...different meaning.
The “...regulate Commerce...among the several States...” is the *farthest* from true in the last 100yrs+; let alone any ‘authority’ to regulate any all drug(s), recreational or otherwise.
My contention still stands: They came a bit too close to home of letting the cat out of the bag.
Ken H,
The Constitution and its “intents” are the job of the supreme court to determine. In other words, this is why they get the big bucks.
All states have a legislative branch which enacts state statutes, an executive branch that promulgates state regulations pursuant to statutory authorization, and a judicial branch that applies, interprets, and occasionally overturns both state statutes and regulations, as well as local ordinances. They retain plenary power to make laws covering anything not preempted by the federal Constitution, federal statutes, or international treaties ratified by the federal Senate. Normally, state supreme courts are the final interpreters of state constitutions and state law, unless their interpretation itself presents a federal issue, in which case a decision may be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court by way of a petition. State laws have dramatically diverged in the centuries since independence, to the extent that the United States cannot be regarded as one legal system as to the majority of types of law traditionally under state control, but must be regarded as 50 separate systems of tort law, family law, property law, contract law, criminal law, and so on. But the final determination of law is left in the hands of the supreme court, a federal institution.
red
Do you say the same about Roe v Wade or the same sex marriage ruling? After all, it's their job and that's why they get the big bucks.
If you’re asking me to place an opinion of the acts of the supreme court, I can’t Constitutional law is about as fuzzy as a bad test pattern. I do have my own theories on Roe vs. Wade and the same sex ruling by the supreme court, but whether I agree with them or not, is immaterial. There has been running gun battles with the court based upon which party has the majority for over 100 years, probably longer. So you pick your battles wisely. And in a lot of cases, they will refuse to take the case and toss it back down the ladder like the voting problem in Florida in the Bush/Gore election.
I never said the supreme court is always right in my mind, but they are the highest court in the land and what they said can only be over ruled by a future supreme court or Constitutional amendment. Gives them cart blanche, doesn’t it.
red
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.