So, Nebraska and Oklahoma are suing Colorado over the legalization of recreational marijuana claiming it’s unconstitutional.
How in the world do they intend to prove standing? Isn’t this a federal thing? If not, could, say, Illinois sue Texas over unconstitutional abortion restrictions?
They’re arguing that they have suffered harm due to the influx of Colordo-grown pot into their states.
Which is a federal issue, right? Interstate trade and all that. Shouldn’t they be suing the US Government for not enforcing their laws within Colorado?
I agree. Marijuana is still technically illegal in all the U.S. contrary to popular belief. You just have a few states rebelling and the feds not doing anything about it (I support the states). Unless Nebraska and Oklahoma can prove that the Colorado state government is exporting marijuana into their borders, it is really none of their business. They can deal with the traffickers within their own borders however they choose too but they better bug out when it comes to threatening a semi-sovereign state.
Are they really claiming they have never seen marijuana before? I don’t get it. OTOH, the Feds really need to make a real decision one way or the other. It doesn’t set a good precedent for states to openly flaunt federal law even if it is a popular move. That type of thing can easily undermine the whole federal system. I believe that the federal government is way too big and overpowering over states right but it is there and you shouldn’t just pick and choose what laws are enforced based on the way the wind is blowing that day.
For the states bordering Colorado, this has been a huge cash windfall; they are picking off potheads for sport.I can’t possibly see how Nebraska or Oklahoma has been harmed.
Aren’t Nebraska and Oklahoma a couple of the states that are filled with people insisting on States’ Rights and getting the Federal government out of their business? It seems to me they should be praising Colorado for telling the feds to bugger off.
And, of course, this will have to go to the Supreme Court due to the court’s original jurisdiction.
Also, with the passage of the 2014 cromnibus effectively ending the federal ban on medical marijuana (by stopping dispensary raids by the feds), it’d seem to me that claiming unconstitutionality is one heck of a reach.
Nebraska, Oklahoma, cut this shit out. Nebraska: other than college football we don’t really care about you. Oklahoma: other than that musical number we don’t really care about you. Stop harshing.
ETA: Don’t even think about it, South Dakota!
Tell me it must be the evil big government liberals behind this, right? Because small government conservatives would never demand more authority by the federal government instead of local control; states rights and all that, right?
I realize that the crux of their argument is the federal level illegality of it, but states’ laws differ already, and they manage it fine. MA bans ALL private fireworks- even sparklers. Few states go that far, and in neighboring NH most fireworks are legal. I’m sure there are similar situations across all state lines and they manage it just fine.
What would make this any different on a practical level?
Also, what others said about conservative states dropping the whole states rights thing when it suits them.
I’ve watched a couple of episodes of the new show on MSNBC: * Pot Barons of Colorado*. In one part they showed Nebraska state troopers patrolling the CO/NE border for illegal pot. I-80, they say, is a major corridor for large shipments of pot leaving Colorado for the East coast. That is probably true. What I don’t understand is what Nebraska’s interest is in attempting to stop these illegal shipments. Of course they will charge anyone found with pot according to their state law (I think?) but why go out of their way stop the flow of the stuff to NYC?
This is a part of the relationship between the Febs and the states that I don’t understand. When some states tried to enforce the federal immigration laws there was a huge uproar. Isn’t Nebraska’s zealous enforcement of the federal pot laws similar?
I think the lawsuit is both meritless and an abandonment of the states’ rights principle. i have no idea if the people who decided to sue have, in other contexts, embraced states’ rights, and I take issue with the sloppy argument above that seems to suggest that the entire state of Nebraska is somehow firmly committed to states’ rights except in this instance. But if I were to learn that the people involved in the decision to sue were themselves advocates of states’ rights in other instances, then I’d agree this choice was inconsistent.
And now a thought experiment.
Colorado’s attorney general is John Suthers, a Republican. He opposed Amendment 64 prior to its passage. To his credit, he says that his office will vigorously defend the law against this suit.
But what if his opposition to the law made him say, “This is a bad law, its passage was a mistake, and I will not defend the law in court?”
Hey! Oklahoma has football too ya know.
Ever been to a Sonic Drive In? (A fantastic stop if you have the munchies BTW) They wouldn’t exist without us either.
Is this going to be a DOMA gotcha?
Well, I expect he’d find himself shy by a few votes next election.
No. Don’t be so cynical.
It’s a CA prop 8 gotcha.
No – it’s a Prop 8 gotcha. More specifically, it’s not about the merits of Prop 8, but about the procedural posture of the case after the California AG refused to defend it.
Right… but the resulting legal precedent would be enshrined and outlive him. So are you saying that a sufficient remedy for that kind of decision by an AG or a governor is at the polls?
Nope, I’m not saying anything about that. I’m saying that if this AG did that, he would likely find himself losing the next election.
If you have a larger question about what people think about the situation you described when looked at legally and what kind of precedent it’s going to set and whether or not that’s a good idea, perhaps you should start a thread on that for those who wish to discuss it.
As it is, you asked a specific question about the Colorado AG engaging in a hypothetical, and I answered it as fully as I’m prepared to do in this thread.