Cannabis on JPR

Home Cannabis on JPR

Medical Marijuana Law Trumps Federal Control Act

  • Jan Boehmermann (1999 posts)
    Profile photo of Jan Boehmermann Donor

    Medical Marijuana Law Trumps Federal Control Act

    When Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery tried to close down a medical marijuana dispensary in Sun City, he attempted to use the Federal Controlled Substances Act to stop the county from issuing a zoning permit, arguing that allowing the dispensary to open meant that officials were facilitating a violation of federal law.
    The case went all the way to the Arizona State Court of Appeals, where the Honorable Judge Donn Kessler upheld the right of county officials to issue the permit. In his ruling, Judge Kessler pointed out that the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act, which voters approved in 2010, is not in fact preempted by federal law, as Montgomery argued.
    Judge Kessler pointed out that because the people of Arizona voted to legalize marijuana possession at the state level, that shields individuals from prosecution at the federal level.

    https://trofire.com/2016/12/25/arizona-state-judge-medical-marijuana-law-trumps-federal-control-act/

    VenusFT, Pastiche, DesertRat2015 and 12 othersEnthusiast, Mom Cat, Ichingcarpenter, Haikugal, bbgrunt, retired liberal, TheNutcracker, glitch, Scuba, MrMickeysMom, , Fasttense like this

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

▼ Hide Reply Index
20 replies
  • 1 month ago #1
    • MrMickeysMom (945 posts)
      Profile photo of MrMickeysMom Donor

      1. Case Law!

      May as well begin it alphabetically. Likewise, if the people of the state choose to count paper ballots and tally at each precinct, it should stand as well. The people voted for it and it became state law.

      There will be those who try to trump federal law, but let the real battle begin.

      Hell no...I'm not giving up...     cat-gif-238.gif giphy.gif
      • HawkeyeX (627 posts)
        Profile photo of HawkeyeX Donor

        2. It is also a question of that law violating 10th Amendment

        That federal statute violates every intent and nature of the 10th Amendment, which Judge Kessler correctly ruled. Yes, it should be a case law.

         

         

        • davidgmills (3835 posts)
          Profile photo of davidgmills Donor

          4. The tenth would not apply here.

          It applies where the federal government has not passed laws; not when the federal government has.

          French Revolution; not secession.
          • Jan Boehmermann (1999 posts)
            Profile photo of Jan Boehmermann Donor

            6. Uh, not exactly…..

            Nowhere in the federal Constitution is Congress given authority to regulate local matters concerning the health, safety, and morality of state residents. Known as police powers, such authority is reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment.

            • davidgmills (3835 posts)
              Profile photo of davidgmills Donor

              8. The Constitution gives Congress very broad powers on lots of things.

              And when Congress chooses to exercise its powers to make laws under the Constitution, the states can’t come in and subvert the power of the Congress.  And that is exactly what is happening here.  It doesn’t mean I like the result that we get in this case when Congressional law trumps state law, but that is the way it works.  We shouldn’t be passing dumb federal laws.  But when we do, it trumps good state law, unfortunately.  And the tenth amendment does not give states the right to overrule or disregard Congress.

              Montana just tried something similary with federal law decided by the Supreme Court in Citizens United.  Montana got its ass kicked by the Supreme Court when Montana decided it would restrict corporate campaign donations after the Citizens United case.

              French Revolution; not secession.
              • Jan Boehmermann (1999 posts)
                Profile photo of Jan Boehmermann Donor

                9. The Tenth Amendment clearly allows AZ to do this……..

                …. and you will NOT see Judge Kessler’s decision overruled.

                If the people of each state choose to decriminalize marijuana in some circumstances, the Constitution plainly reserves to them the power to do so.

                • davidgmills (3835 posts)
                  Profile photo of davidgmills Donor

                  12. Wrong.

                  If states can legalize marijuana, what prohibits states from legalizing slavery again?

                  French Revolution; not secession.
                  • Jan Boehmermann (1999 posts)
                    Profile photo of Jan Boehmermann Donor

                    13. If states could have legal alcohol, ……

                    …. why did they have to pass the 18th Amendment to get nationwide prohibition of alcohol?

                    Thanks for pointing out that the 13th Amendment was passed to free the slaves.

                    • davidgmills (3835 posts)
                      Profile photo of davidgmills Donor

                      14. Because initially there was no federal prohibition against alcohol.

                      Once the 18th amendment passed, then no state could legally make or sell it.  Once the 18th was repealed, then all states could do it again.  It is a very good lesson in the supremacy clause.

                      Once there is a constitutional federal law in place, states can not pass laws that subvert it, until the federal law is repealed.

                      French Revolution; not secession.
                      • Jan Boehmermann (1999 posts)
                        Profile photo of Jan Boehmermann Donor

                        16. There was no Federal prohibition against slavery until the passage of the !3th.

                        And that was because of the 10th Amendment.   “States Rights” you know.

                      • davidgmills (3835 posts)
                        Profile photo of davidgmills Donor

                        17. Back to first principles.

                        If the federal government does not pass a law on a legal matter, the tenth amendment allows states to pass laws to address that legal matter.  But once the federal government makes a law concerning that particular legal matter, then the federal law is supreme and the state law is subservient.

                        And the slavery issue worked exactly that way.

                        But the tenth amendment people seem to think that at times state law should supersede federal law.  And it doesn’t.

                        French Revolution; not secession.
                      • Jan Boehmermann (1999 posts)
                        Profile photo of Jan Boehmermann Donor

                        19. I see we're not gonna agree on this one…..

                        So get back to me when Judge Kessler’s decision has been overruled.

                      • davidgmills (3835 posts)
                        Profile photo of davidgmills Donor

                        20. I don't care about his ruling. Judges make bad rulings all the time.

                        It just depends on what the state government decides to do.  If the state government drops the case, the judge’s decision will stand but it will not have any precedential value whatsoever.  The US courts  won’t even consider the Judge’s opinion to have any legal precedence if the state government decides not to challenge the judge.  If the state government decides to challenge the judge’s ruling his ruling still won’t have any precedential value until a court overrules the judge.

                        French Revolution; not secession.
    • davidgmills (3835 posts)
      Profile photo of davidgmills Donor

      3. This is dumb. It violates every known case upholding the supremacy clause.

      When state law trumps federal law, good-bye country.

      French Revolution; not secession.
      • MrMickeysMom (945 posts)
        Profile photo of MrMickeysMom Donor

        5. Did you really mean it when you said…

        when state law trumps federal law, good-bye country?

        Hell no...I'm not giving up...     cat-gif-238.gif giphy.gif
        • davidgmills (3835 posts)
          Profile photo of davidgmills Donor

          7. Yes. Perhaps sarcastically. But why should state law supersede federal law

          If we are supposed to be a country rather than a confederation of states?

          French Revolution; not secession.
          • MrMickeysMom (945 posts)
            Profile photo of MrMickeysMom Donor

            10. You are actually right on superseding laws, which I've argued being wrong…

            I know I’m on the wrong side of this with my view as to why federal laws against pot are unenforceable, and therefore, should be stripped, beginning with removing cannabis  as a schedule I drug. Then, I loose out to arguments that are technically right when saying the federal law is so wrong that it ought to be challenged over and over and over again as this case presented itself.  My husband and I just argued over this and I KNOW he was right when saying, “Well, what if there was a state referendum that voted slavery legal again, would THAT supersede federal law?”

            We are not a confederacy of states… (we’re a confederacy of dunces within these states!) I’m really angry over Obama’s not even considering the removal of schedule I. What a fight this is going to be from this point.

            Hell no...I'm not giving up...     cat-gif-238.gif giphy.gif
            • davidgmills (3835 posts)
              Profile photo of davidgmills Donor

              11. Your husband is exactly right with his analogy.

              The problem I have is that religion still very much permeates our laws and a great many laws originate there.  So you get religious notions of morality dictating what the people as a whole must do when many people and often most people object to the particular moral imposition.  But as every decade passes, religious influence fades.  Maybe in another 10 or 20 years, we will see lots of these laws repealed.

              French Revolution; not secession.
              • MrMickeysMom (945 posts)
                Profile photo of MrMickeysMom Donor

                15. Gawd, David…

                I don’t think I have the patience for 10 to 20 years… :headbang:

                Hell no...I'm not giving up...     cat-gif-238.gif giphy.gif
                • davidgmills (3835 posts)
                  Profile photo of davidgmills Donor

                  18. I've been waiting for the ERA to pass since the 1970's.

                  And it would not affect me personally at all.  But it would affect all the women in my family, all women, and anybody who has been discriminated against because of their sexuality.  To me that is far more important issue that MJ.

                  And I am still waiting.

                  French Revolution; not secession.