The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > General Questions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-27-2010, 03:18 PM
KarlGauss KarlGauss is offline
Out of the slimy mud of words
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 7,065
Legal in a state, illegal federally

In this thread about the forthcoming ballot in California to legalize marijuana, it was stated that even if California legalizes pot, it would still be illegal to possess it under Federal law. In such an instance, where a state's laws are at odds with those of the Federal system, what happens? Do states' rights automatically trump those of the Federal government? Is the situation automatically reviewed (and then decided) by SCOTUS?

Thinking about this a bit more, I seem to recall reading (I'm a Canadian, so I'm not sure) that for Oregon's assisted-suicide laws (or whatever they're called), and for that matter, even when some states legalized 'medical marijuana', the Feds reserved the right to prosecute. If so, have they ever gone ahead and done that?
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 03-27-2010, 03:24 PM
DCnDC DCnDC is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Completely talking out of my ass here, but it's my understanding that the Feds will enforce their laws even if it contradicts state laws. The feds retain the right to prosecute federal crimes at all times. The main penalty for states is the loss or threat of loss of federal funding for whatever. I'm sure someone with actual knowledge can be more specific and intelligent about it than I.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-27-2010, 03:28 PM
John Mace John Mace is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCnDC View Post
Completely talking out of my ass here, but it's my understanding that the Feds will enforce their laws even if it contradicts state laws. The feds retain the right to prosecute federal crimes at all times. The main penalty for states is the loss or threat of loss of federal funding for whatever. I'm sure someone with actual knowledge can be more specific and intelligent about it than I.
I think that's an accurate assessment.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-27-2010, 03:40 PM
KarlGauss KarlGauss is offline
Out of the slimy mud of words
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 7,065
Hmm. Interesting. I would have thought that the 10th amendment implied that the states should prevail (in a philosophical sense if nothing else)? Of course, if that were the legal implication, you probably wouldn't have answered as you did.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-27-2010, 03:45 PM
John Mace John Mace is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlGauss View Post
Hmm. Interesting. I would have thought that the 10th amendment implied that the states should prevail (in a philosophical sense if nothing else)? Of course, if that were the legal implication, you probably wouldn't have answered as you did.
The SCOTUS has decided that the commerce clause grants the feds sweeping powers that are not constrained by the 10th. Reference Gonzales v Raich.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-27-2010, 04:00 PM
KarlGauss KarlGauss is offline
Out of the slimy mud of words
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 7,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
Reference Gonzales v Raich.
Wow, Clarence Thomas just went way up in my esteem. He spoke from his heart, the heart of a patriot and protector of the individual, when he quoted Madison. Thanks for that cite.

As an aside, it was very interesting for me to see Thomas and Rehnquist among the dissenters (and on the side opposite 'Nino').
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-27-2010, 04:01 PM
Richard Parker Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution means that the federal government wins in any conflict with the states, so long as the federal exercise of power was itself constitutional. Thus, if the federal government sets up a federal bank in California, California cannot tax the bank without federal government permission.

Whether any particular exercise of state power has been preempted by federal law depends on the extent to which they conflict, and whether Congress intended to preempt the state laws. The Supreme Court has so far declined to hear the issue of whether and to what extent California's medical marijuana laws (or those of any other state) are preempted by the federal government regulation of marijuana.

The additional wrinkle is that the federal government cannot commandeer state authorities to enforce federal law. If the state laws are interpreted to simply remove state sanctions from certain behavior, then this presents no conflict with federal law, and the federal government cannot force state officials to enforce the federal law. This is the uneasy standoff the currently exists in CA.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-27-2010, 04:06 PM
John Mace John Mace is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
Whether any particular exercise of state power has been preempted by federal law depends on the extent to which they conflict, and whether Congress intended to preempt the state laws. The Supreme Court has so far declined to hear the issue of whether and to what extent California's medical marijuana laws (or those of any other state) are preempted by the federal government regulation of marijuana.
I must be misreading what you posted, because I thought that was exactly what Raich did.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-27-2010, 04:11 PM
jasg jasg is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Upper left hand corner
Posts: 3,001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
The additional wrinkle is that the federal government cannot commandeer state authorities to enforce federal law. If the state laws are interpreted to simply remove state sanctions from certain behavior, then this presents no conflict with federal law, and the federal government cannot force state officials to enforce the federal law. This is the uneasy standoff the currently exists in CA.
In addition, the administration has told the DEA to stop enforcement against legal California medical marijuana. IIRC, this reversed the Bush era policy.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-27-2010, 04:12 PM
Richard Parker Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
I must be misreading what you posted, because I thought that was exactly what Raich did.
The distinction is rather subtle. Raich said that the federal government's regulation of an individual growing medicinal marijuana was within the federal commerce power. That is separate from the question of whether the federal government's regulation preempts state laws permitting growth and use of medical marijuana. It is a necessary but not sufficient condition of preemption.

The difference, of some constitutional import, is between the Court saying the feds can prosecute and stop X, and the Court saying the states must not permit X.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-27-2010, 04:38 PM
Markxxx Markxxx is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Chicago,IL
Posts: 14,962
Historically this was much more of a problem. The best example was the fugitive slave laws.

Many Northern states, simply said, "they weren't going to enforce it period."

And even if the state did enforce it, the local jurisdiction often would not do so. (As in Ohio may enforce the slave law but Cincinnati wouldn't <-made up example)

But this is always not so problematic as seen with gay marriage.

You can be married in some states and not others. A gay marriage in Massachusetts is valid, but it's not valid in Illinois and it's not valid for the federal government.

Yeah I realize it's not the same thing as there's a criminal part to marijuana not present in gay marriage, but you see the point.

Another exmaple is cellphones and cars. This is not a federal / state thing but a state / city thing. Again two levels of government.

In some cities you can't talk on a cellphone and drive. Fair enough, but you can talk on a cellphone and drive in the rest of the state.

Seems cut and dry, but not so, some courts have ruled, that since city boundries come and go a driver can't reasonably be expected to know where he needs to turn off the cell phone. So the ticket's not enforceable to certain people.

Gun laws are another issue, especially in California. This again is a state / city thing. A state will issue a valid gun license and a city will ban guns. Who trumps who? Well it depends on the state law and the way it's enforced. We've seen in California, courts willing to say the state gun law rules over a local gun law.

In Illinois, Chicago has banned handguns and has successfully made it stick (so far). You can't buy a handgun in the suburbs and bring it into Chicago. Because Illnois has said, Chicago's home rule allows it. Other states with home rule have ruled otherwise.

This is confusing to people because the result is mishmash of laws. But when you look at it it's actually common.

Another good example is our federal courts. We have many cases where a law has been passed and one federal appeals court will rule the law is consitutional and one federal court will rule it unconstitutional.

So what happens? Logic says, you go to the United States Supreme Court and they make the final ruling. And this has happened, but the SCOTUS often will decline to hear the case. The result is that both rulings are upheld.

This has happened more over the years as the federal appeals court based in San Francisco is more liberal than the rest of them. There in fact has been an effort to somehow require the SCOTUS to actually rule of conflicting opinions to straighten things out either way. So far that has failed.

In the case of the marijuana law most likely the federal agents will enforce it and the state will allow them. Why? Because that will bring it to the courts where they can (hopefully) get a "once and for all" final ruling.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-27-2010, 06:52 PM
Ruken Ruken is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 2,702
Thanks for that post. I'm curious about this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Markxxx View Post
Another good example is our federal courts. We have many cases where a law has been passed and one federal appeals court will rule the law is consitutional and one federal court will rule it unconstitutional.
Can you think of any recent examples?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-27-2010, 10:56 PM
jtgain jtgain is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlGauss View Post
Hmm. Interesting. I would have thought that the 10th amendment implied that the states should prevail (in a philosophical sense if nothing else)? Of course, if that were the legal implication, you probably wouldn't have answered as you did.
The 10th would seem to imply that the states have vast areas of power that the feds should not even passing laws about in the first place. Current commerce clause interpretation has made this distinction a joke, and the feds pass pretty much what they want to under the guise that it touches interstate commerce.

But in a situation where a state law conflicts with a valid and constitutional federal law, the federal law trumps due to the Supremecy Clause, which someone here will quote shortly.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-27-2010, 11:27 PM
Captain Amazing Captain Amazing is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 23,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
Can you think of any recent examples?
The court just agreed to hear Bruesewitz v Wyeth, which asks whether the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act preempts tort liability by vaccine manufacturers outside of vaccine court. The 3rd Court of Appeals ruled that it did. That contradicts Ferrari v. American Home Products, Inc., a decision by the Georgia State Supreme Court, which said that it doesn't.

The Court also recently heard arguments in Conkright v. Frommert, which challenges a 2nd Circuit decision that a district court "has 'allowable discretion' to adopt any 'reasonable' interpretation of the terms of an ERISA plan when the plan interpretation issue arises in the course of calculating additional benefits due under the plan as a result of an ERISA violation." (from the list of questions presented). This contradicts other circuit decisions, which ruled that a district court doesn't have such discretion.

Last edited by Captain Amazing; 03-27-2010 at 11:28 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-29-2010, 12:38 AM
Oslo Ostragoth Oslo Ostragoth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: the Prairie
Posts: 6,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Markxxx View Post
But this is always not so problematic as seen with gay marriage.

You can be married in some states and not others. A gay marriage in Massachusetts is valid, but it's not valid in Illinois and it's not valid for the federal government.
Are you sure about this? I thought that states had to recognize a marriage if it was valid where performed.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-29-2010, 01:07 AM
SCSimmons SCSimmons is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oslo Ostragoth View Post
Are you sure about this? I thought that states had to recognize a marriage if it was valid where performed.
Nope. Currently, only the states of New York, Maryland, and Rhode Island recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, even though they don't allow them there. (Cue Great Debates thread on the death of the 'full faith and credit' clause of the U.S. Constitution.)
__________________
-Christian
"You won't like me when I'm angry. Because I always back up my rage with facts and documented sources." -- The Credible Hulk
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-29-2010, 09:55 AM
smiling bandit smiling bandit is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
The distinction is rather subtle. Raich said that the federal government's regulation of an individual growing medicinal marijuana was within the federal commerce power. That is separate from the question of whether the federal government's regulation preempts state laws permitting growth and use of medical marijuana. It is a necessary but not sufficient condition of preemption.
In this case, the court was flat wrong, and their reasoning was so suspect it amounted to a public acknowledgement those who voted for it were full of horse-shit. It's actually hilarious how tortured their reasoning went - and if they actually believed it, Congress would become the all-powerful demigods with no legal limits whatsoever.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-29-2010, 05:20 PM
Spectre of Pithecanthropus Spectre of Pithecanthropus is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Marmite Free Sector
Posts: 17,709
If the California legalization proposal passes, the federal government could step in, but whether it actually will depends on a number of things. For instance, if Obama loses in 2012 a more conservative administration could spell a speedy end to the experiment, and probably legal MMJ as well. Otherwise, who knows? If there doesn't seem to be much of a problem with legal pot in California, it may be left alone. Based on a court precedent, the possession and use of small amounts of MJ for recreational purposes was legal in Alaska for a time; what happened with regard to the federal government then?

I have to wonder if anybody bothers trying to smuggle it into California anymore. Between legal MMJ production and distribution, and the Humboldt farmers covering the illicit side, you'd think that would be enough to supply anyone in the state who wants it.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-29-2010, 07:46 PM
Oslo Ostragoth Oslo Ostragoth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: the Prairie
Posts: 6,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCSimmons View Post
Nope. Currently, only the states of New York, Maryland, and Rhode Island recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, even though they don't allow them there. (Cue Great Debates thread on the death of the 'full faith and credit' clause of the U.S. Constitution.)
Wow. How would you like to be traveling through one of those and have an emergency need requiring a recognized marriage?
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.