Supreme Court denies appeal on CHL-for-medical-marijuana case.

[Gunner3456]

To those miffed at Winters, try placing the taxpayer $ wasted blame where it belongs - the conflicting laws involved. This is the only problem I have with Med MJ. The Fed/State laws are screwed-up jokes. It can't be okay here but not there, and what law trumps the other? The sheriff is stuck in the middle and, IMO, is only trying to do the right thing. The laws need fixing, and it sounds to me like the Feds are once again asleep at the wheel.

This was one of the criticisms of Winters. Some think he stepped out of line enforcing Federal laws instead of State laws. He works for the people of Oregon, specifically Jackson County.

Some even think State's rights trump Federal law except where specifically granted powers lie in the US Constitution.

"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." US Constitution, 10th Amendment, also part of what's called "The Bill of Rights."

 

[Gunner3456]

It was really hard to originally put the US Constitution together because there were very divergent backgrounds and beliefs among the original states.

Even after getting it done, there was still concern that this new "Federal government" would take too much power, so the first ten amendments were made.

They are called "The Bill of Rights." That means the rights of the people and the states, not the Federal Government.

From that we get the 1st amendment which is freedom of speech, religion, the press...

We get 2A which we are all familiar with...

We get our freedom from unreasonable and warrantless searches and seizures (or used to LOL)

And then it ends with the 10th, from which I quoted above, really meant to restrict the Feds.

 

[Malibu38368]

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Federal law trumps state law, always.
All federal laws must be supported by a power granted to the federal government by the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment does nothing to change, deviate or contradict that; it merely makes explicit that any power not expressly granted to the federal government is reserved to the states, or the people, in the opinion of some.
Like most federal laws that impact non-federal issues, Congress generally uses the Commerce Clause (Article I, § 8, cl 3) to enact and enforce federal firearms regulation.

 

[Gunner3456]

Federal law trumps state law, always.
All federal laws must be supported by a power granted to the federal government by the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment does nothing to change, deviate or contradict that; it merely makes explicit that any power not expressly granted to the federal government is reserved to the states, or the people, in the opinion of some.
Like most federal laws that impact non-federal issues, Congress generally uses the Commerce Clause (Article I, § 8, cl 3) to enact and enforce federal firearms regulation.

It's not true that "Federal law trumps state law, always." It is true that the US Constitution's Commerce Clause (the right to regulate interstate commerce) is used to justify regulating guns, ammo and drugs and alcohol.

However, some are starting to complain that if no part of a gun is made outside of, or sold outside of just one state, then BATF would have no say over it.

Montana passed a law to that effect and the Governor signed it. Now Montana is suing the Feds to enforce it. I'm watching it closely. Montana agrees with me on this. CBS News

I'm waiting for a court case where the Feds try to enforce an MJ law, and get stumped by the claim that the seeds, plant, etc. were all grown and used in Oregon, no interstate commerce was involved, and therefore the Feds don't have jurisdiction.

There will be a claim that the state law trumps Federal Law, just as Montana is claiming that their gun law trumps Federal Law.

 

[Malibu38368]

It's not true that "Federal law trumps state law, always." It is true that the US Constitution's Commerce Clause (the right to regulate interstate commerce) is used to justify regulating guns, ammo and drugs and alcohol.

False. If a state law conflicts with a valid federal law, then the federal law is supreme.

However, some are starting to complain that if no part of a gun is made outside of, or sold outside of just one state, then BATF would have no say over it.

Montana passed a law to that effect and the Governor signed it. Now Montana is suing the Feds to enforce it. I'm watching it closely. Montana agrees with me on this. CBS News

I think that we're all very well aware of this. I believe Tennessee has, or has considered, a similar law. It will probably succeed. Provided that all machinery and raw materials used in the manufacture of said firearms comes form Montana. That is how monstrously out of control the Commerce Clause has become, thanks in no small part to the Warren Court. And that's just the first hurdle.

I'm waiting for a court case where the Feds try to enforce an MJ law, and get stumped by the claim that the seeds, plant, etc. were all grown and used in Oregon, no interstate commerce was involved, and therefore the Feds don't have jurisdiction.

There will be a claim that the state law trumps Federal Law, just as Montana is claiming that their gun law trumps Federal Law.

You're seven years too late. Congress may, under the Commerce Clause, criminalize the production and use of marijuana grown by private citizens, for private consumption in their home with seeds that never crossed state lines, even where state law permits it. Gonzalez v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005). The worst part about this case is that it considers interstate black markets to be a market which Congress has authority to regulate. I concur with Thomas, that "[r]espondent's local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not 'Commerce . . . among the several States,'" but unfortunately, six other Justices did not.

This entire line of reasoning stems from a 1942 decision, wherein the Court reasoned that private production of goods which might otherwise be sold on the open market may be properly regulated under the Commerce Clause, because the producer's decision to produce their own goods, rather than purchase them on the open market, will impact prices. This impact, it was reasoned, would affect the interstate market and therefore, could be regulated by Congress. Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942).

And unfortunately for us all, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of law in America. Their ambit is technically limited to ensuring that no law violates the Constitution, but in executing that duty they set as a result the outer boundaries of what Congress may do, and not every Court has taken care to see that their rulings are as narrowly tailored as they should be.

BTW, Montana isn't claiming that their law trumps federal law, which would be a challenge to the Supremacy Clause, and would fail. They're claiming that the federal government cannot regulate purely intrastate activities under the Commerce Clause, and essentially challenging the ATF to a game of chicken. That is a very substantial difference. Unfortunately, it will probably lose that game, to the continued detriment of us all.

 

[Gunner3456]

False. If a state law conflicts with a valid federal law, then the federal law is supreme.

Valid law. That means it isn't unconstitutional under the US constitution. Otherwise, state law rules.

We agree that the Feds including the SC have increasingly overstepped their bounds. We both agree with Thomas. I didn't know about that case and it frankly saddens me.

Many contend that Winters, given the choice, is paid to enforce Oregon's laws, and didn't need to spend taxpayer money reaching for the unreachable - enforcing federal law. He could have just given that woman her CHL and saved a lot of time and money for the county. No other sheriff in Oregon (that I know of) has before or since taken Winter's stance on the issue and they and their legal staffs are all well aware of Winters.

 

[VW_Factor]

False. If a state law conflicts with a valid federal law, then the federal law is supreme.

Ignoring all else in your post unless you can provide a valid cite for this nugget here.

 

[Malibu38368]

Ignoring all else in your post unless you can provide a valid cite for this nugget here.

Looks like you already ignored everything else, including the citation you want:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2.

In Bluebook format, even.

 

[Gunner3456]

Ignoring all else in your post unless you can provide a valid cite for this nugget here.

Looks like you already ignored everything else, including the citation you want:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2.

In Bluebook format, even.

"Under the authority of..." Laws...made made in pursuance thereof..." ("This Constitution") No Federal Law can be made except under the authority granted it by the Constitution.

Everyone knows that if a Federal law is unconstitutional, it gets tossed, or used to.

What I've been trying to say is:

"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." US Constitution, 10th Amendment.

So, if the US Constitution doesn't affirmatively grant the Feds a power, then the Feds don't have that power. That power is reserved for the people and the states.

Increasingly, people are remembering and demanding "state's rights." That's much of what's being done by many states jointly in a suit against Obamacare, right now.

Let's just go in circles for awhile, OK?

 

[fd15k]

Many contend that Winters, given the choice, is paid to enforce Oregon's laws, and didn't need to spend taxpayer money reaching for the unreachable - enforcing federal law. He could have just given that woman her CHL and saved a lot of time and money for the county. No other sheriff in Oregon (that I know of) has before or since taken Winter's stance on the issue and they and their legal staffs are all well aware of Winters.

That's not exactly what happened though. CHL issuance is a matter of Oregon law, and no federal law dictates who carry licenses can be issued to by the states. Sheriff did not enforce any CHL-related federal law in this situation, instead he was himself in violation of Oregon law. That's why I said earlier - he had no standing.

 

[Gunner3456]

That's not exactly what happened though. CHL issuance is a matter of Oregon law, and no federal law dictates who carry licenses can be issued to by the states. Sheriff did not enforce any CHL-related federal law in this situation, instead he was himself in violation of Oregon law. That's why I said earlier - he had no standing.

Slight misunderstanding. I was referring to the Federal law about pot. He claimed he couldn't issue her a CHL because of the Federal law.

We agree.

 

[Flyingswords]

Sounds like that Sheriff got butthurt twice LOL

 

[Grunwald]

Isn't the DOJ going after several states because they (DOJ) say the states have no business enforcing federal immigration laws?

 

[RB87]

Isn't the DOJ going after several states because they (DOJ) say the states have no business enforcing federal immigration laws?

Thats the great contradiction. California is currently trying to pass a state law that will forbid local/state law enforcement from cooperating with Federal immigration authorities except on cases that involve violent felonies*. This while they ignore Federal enforcement going after medical marijuana sellers/users that they have made legal in their state. Nullification is ok for a government but not its subjects er I mean citizens.

* The state won't help the feds prosecute illegal alien felons and deport them even though those felons are stealing via say ID theft from their own tax paying legal citizens. Whats the point of being a law abiding citizen at that stage? It gains you nothing other than keeping you out of jail. It is rule of man, not rule of law.

 

[One-Eyed Ross]

But to open the door to everyone on my jobsites and working around machinery stoned I dont see how it's a good idea.
However I am glad they didn't impose this on the people who use legally since it is still their right to bear arms if they have not committed a crime.

How is working stoned different than working drunk? No boss would allow either, just like driving stoned is already against the law. Legalizing pot use wouldn't legalize driving (or working) impaired.

 

[fd15k]

How is working stoned different than working drunk? No boss would allow either, just like driving stoned is already against the law. Legalizing pot use wouldn't legalize driving (or working) impaired.

If you think about it, it sounds like a very familiar argument. "There will be blood on the streets if we allow people to carry concealed handguns..." Sometimes it's really amazing how ultra right people sound exactly the same as ultra left ones. That is a reminder - any extremism is harmful, regardless of the ideology.

 

[Contract_Pilot]

How is working stoned different than working drunk? No boss would allow either, just like driving stoned is already against the law. Legalizing pot use wouldn't legalize driving (or working) impaired.

But there are a lot of people driving and working on other prescription drugs that are worse than alcohol and mj.

 

[fd15k]

But there are a lot of people driving and working on other prescription drugs that are worse than alcohol and mj.

Technically they are also in violation of the law though. DUI laws don't make a distinction between illegal and legally prescribed substances - if you are impaired, you are not allowed to drive. Use of machinery is not regulated through state laws in many cases, but specific employers have their own rules regarding that.

 

[EMP9596]

Thats the great contradiction. California is currently trying to pass a state law that will forbid local/state law enforcement from cooperating with Federal immigration authorities except on cases that involve violent felonies*. This while they ignore Federal enforcement going after medical marijuana sellers/users that they have made legal in their state. Nullification is ok for a government but not its subjects er I mean citizens.

* The state won't help the feds prosecute illegal alien felons and deport them even though those felons are stealing via say ID theft from their own tax paying legal citizens. Whats the point of being a law abiding citizen at that stage? It gains you nothing other than keeping you out of jail. It is rule of man, not rule of law.

California is $$$ broke... They do not want to spend the money to prosecute if there is a chance the feds will take the burden.

 

[dmancornell]

How is working stoned different than working drunk? No boss would allow either, just like driving stoned is already against the law. Legalizing pot use wouldn't legalize driving (or working) impaired.

The stoner stereotype is nothing more than government propaganda to get people to accept their pharmaceutical intolerance, much like the racist redneck militia stereotype is used to classify anyone who disagrees with government fascism.

For white collar work, MJ is totally harmless. I know and work with smokers with grad degrees and PhD's who can out-think and out-work any drug warrior jerkoff.