SCOTUS FINALLY says "federal law can NOT preempt state pot laws"

[dc dalton]

Well it's about damn time the court stepped up!

"The courts have made clear that federal law does not preempt California's medical marijuana law and that local officials must comply with that law," Joe Elford, chief counsel with Americans for Safe Access (ASA), a national medical marijuana advocacy group, said in a release. "No longer will local officials be able to hide behind federal law and resist upholding California’s medical marijuana law."

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/05/...cal-marijuana/

[knight0334]

Good. The federal government's authority to make laws is strictly limited to the powers vested by the Constitution in Article I and a few of the Amendments. More federal laws need challenged against the states' rights to govern.

[LittleRedToyota]

very interesting.

i wonder if gonzalez v. raich was addressed in the state court opinion (does anyone have a link to the opinion?).

SCOTUS seems to be saying:

"the state supreme court has told you counties that you must do what state law tells you to do, and we are not going to override them. however, by doing what state law tells you to do, you are opening the door to having the federal government come into your county and raid businesses that are complying with that very state law. in other words, we are telling you you have to facilitate an activity which we are allowing the federal government to criminalize and prosecute."

yeah, that makes sense...

gonzalez v. raich is one of the worst SCOTUS cases on record...i'd love to see it actually overturned--maybe this is a first step.

[tl_3237]

"San Diego’s argument rested on a claim that local police must enforce federal law and therefore couldn’t abide by the voter-approved measure."

I remember discussing this on a legal website and maybe here. I'm under the impression that, lacking state legislative authority to the contrary, local/state police CANNOT enforce Federal laws. They can only collect information relative to the infraction and submit it to the responsible Federal agency (ex- BATFE, FBI, etc) for follow-on action at the Federal level.

Can anyone clarify?

[Morel42]

Well it's about damn time the court stepped up!



http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/05/...cal-marijuana/

Holy @@#$#@$.

[Mtbkski]

First Montana with the Gun Making. Now California with Drug Laws. I kind of like it when the country runs the way it was suppose too.

[mojo]

CA with their "pot" laws might be the 2nd Amendment's biggest Allie. Who would have ever thought that this would happen.

[ChamberedRound]

CA with their "pot" laws might be the 2nd Amendment's biggest Allie. Who would have ever thought that this would happen.

Exactly what I was thinking, as this ruling can be used to defend the "Made in Montana" law if the federal government ever decides to take Montana to task.

[adymond]

I am actually starting to feel a little bit of . . . what is it they all chanted . . . hope.

Maybe just maybe some of these cases will begin to overlap and allow us to wrest back control of our country.

[LittleRedToyota]

Exactly what I was thinking, as this ruling can be used to defend the "Made in Montana" law if the federal government ever decides to take Montana to task.

unfortunately, i don't think this case would be very relevant.

the relevant case regarding pot and california would be gonzalez v. raich in which SCOTUS said that the federal government can use the commerce clause to claim jurisdiction over intrastate activities which might somehow effect interstate commerce and bust pot growers/users in CA even if what they are doing is legal under CA law (in other words, the federal government can use the commerce clause to do pretty much whatever they want).

this case doesn't seem to actually deal with limiting federal jurisdiction or federal authority at all. this case would *not* stop the federal government from busting people in california for violating federal marijuana laws and, thus, doesn't seem to have any bearing on the issue of the federal government busting people in MT for violating federal gun laws.

this case seems to be solely about forcing the counties to follow state law. it doesn't seem effect the federal government at all (at least going just by the news reports without having read the actual case).