There is something in federal law pertaining to pot - it prohibits pot smoking for recreational use. And it prohibits most people from growing, possessing, and selling pot.
But California decided to defy federal law with its “legalization” of recreational pot.
How can that be? Simple. California did it knowing progressive Obama and his crew would not challenge the defiance. Obama was a drug user himself - in the past . . . wink, wink.
Will California continue to get away with defying federal law? I don't know for sure. Attorney General Sessions has made some noises but Trump has so many battles right now he may not want to wade into that fight with California, several other rebel states, and the Hollywood/fake news cartel.
As I have said before, progressives will ignore plain federal or state law when it is in their interest and usually they pay no penalty.
But they will stick a bayonet into a baker quicker than they will put a nickel in the jukebox if the homosexual cupcake production quota is not met.
But nothing in the Constitution, which means your analogy was ridiculous.
And correct me if I'm wrong but states are not preventing the federal authorities from enforcing federal law?
But California decided to defy federal law with its “legalization” of recreational pot.
It is not California's job to enforce federal law; that's the job of the U.S. government. All California, and other states, has done is to repeal similar state laws outlawing pot. It's within their power to do so.
As I have said before, progressives will ignore plain federal or state law when it is in their interest and usually they pay no penalty.
Yes you have said so, time and again. Still doesn't make it factual.