No need for the thought experiment, this is happening in Pennsylvania right now. The State Attorney General Kathleen Kane will not defend a new law that effectively stripped municipalities of the right to enact their own gun measures, raising the prospect that the controversial statute might not take hold.
Certain municipalities are suing the state over the enactment of the preemption law that was passed by voters, and Kane is refusing to defend it, instead punting to the Governor’s office.
About a month and a half ago I drove to Wyoming from Minnesota.
I saw ONE highway patrol car in Minnesota, down near Rochester.
I saw one in Iowa, outside Des Moines.
I saw one outside Omaha.
I saw THREE within 5 miles of the 76/80 split near the Colorado border. All three had east bound cars pulled over.
I saw one in Wyoming.
I saw one in South Dakota on the way back.
All they’re doing is farming travelers for fines and forfeitures. It has nothing to do with Public Safety or, really, illegal drugs reaching Nebraska. We’ve given our cops a license to be old fashioned Highwaymen, robbing passing travelers at their whim. All in the name of the Drug War.
I’m kinda torn on this. On one hand, fuck Nebraska and Oklahoma. I fully support the legalization of Marijuana. On the other hand, we have a mess with the whole ‘states rights’ vs. Federal Law thing and opening that can of worms is not a desirable outcome.
The major factor to me here is that it is still a Schedule I drug while we have the President, Congress and even the majority of states now supporting it as a viable medical drug. Clearly the Schedule needs to change, and I hope that Obama takes unilateral action to order it’s rescheduling before he leaves office.
Some slightly whimsical analysis of the lawsuit here. The high court is unlikely to take this case too seriously, either, I imagine.
Heh. Emphasis mine.
Peace!
I knew a woman from Oklahoma in my college days. We both worked in the physiology department of the med school. I called her an Okie, jokingly, and she went waaay overboard discussing the term and why it was offensive.
So, of course I got a friend who was an art major to make an Okies sign. We hung it on the door to the janitor closet between the mens and ladies bathrooms. It’s a wonder I graduated.
ETA: puff —> pass
Why? I think it is a good technical argument. Raich has held that the federal marijuana prohibition is constitutional. I’m a big states rights guy, but I accept that I have lost that argument.
But let’s put the fact that it is a popular issue aside.
Suppose State A was allowing activity X in violation of federal law. A lot of the X activity was flowing over into State B causing problems.
Doesn’t State B, at minimum, have a valid nuisance claim? And what would be a good judicial remedy? Since X is illegal anyways, the judge could order State A to stop allowing X. Now, they could not force the state to enforce the federal prohibition, but why couldn’t the Court order them to stop taxing and licensing the product? Or to strip it of all tax and licensing revenues as a form of unjust enrichment?
I’m not necessarily saying I agree with this approach, but why does it have no merit from the outset?
Do states have any duty to enforce federal laws?
I’m guessing that they have to help out in specific ways if federal law enforcement requests it, but do they actually have to figure out how to enforce them in general on their own?
That’s weird. It never would have occurred to me to be offended at being called an Okie. I wonder what she thought of our method of staking utility lines before digging. AKA Call Okie.
puff —> pass
No. The states have zero duty to enforce federal laws. However, they do have to conduct their affairs in a manner which does not create nuisance to other states.
So, if a same-sex couple gets married in New York, then tries to get driver’s licenses in Florida, and files a lawsuit because Florida refuses to issue them licenses with their new married name, is that a nuisance that would justify Florida suing New York? Last I heard. the federal Defense of Marriage Act was still on the books.
No . . . their problem is that Colorado grows a higher-quality product; in NE and OK, it’s killing jobs!
Back before drinking age laws were standardized, kids would by alcohol legally in NY and bring it to Connecticut, causing a nuisance there. Is there a precedent for a state with a higher drinking age suing one with the lower one? How about the fireworks example mentioned above?
States rights is a fig leaf used by racists and misogynists to subvert federal law and should be fought against. Until it helped causes I personally support, like gay marriage and marijuana decriminalization. Now it’s totally groovy.
Ah, but in Proposition 8, the third-party defenders were found not to have standing to defend the law. If the Colorado marijuana law were overturned, every marijuana grower and seller in the state would suffer a definite and quantifiable economic loss. Surely that would allow them to form an organization that would have standing to defend the law?
State’s rights are a deeply important principle, and in no way are just a cover for rampant racism and misogyny. The Supreme Court has no right to overturn the laws a state’s voters wanted. Until they help causes I’m against, like gay marriage and marijuana decriminalization. Now I think they subvert federal law and should be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
That was already established.
The federal government has lots of graymail over the states in the form of federal subsidies for various programs, such as highway funding. He who pays the piper calls the tune.
If the President, Attorney General, and Secretary of DHS don’t have to enforce laws they don’t like, why should the states? (Other than the bribery you mention.)
I don’t really see the relevance of Prop 8. The claim by Prop 8 opponents was that the state of CA was violating individual rights under the Federal Equal Protection clause. The Federal government’s ability to regulate marijuana stems from the Interstate Commerce clause.
I happen to take an expansive view of the EP clause and of the IC clause, but someone could take a limited view of one clause and an expansive view of the other without being inconsistent.
However, if someone were to claim that they read the IC clause narrowly (because of “states’ rights” or whatever) and then turn around and support the Federal government’s regulation of marijuana, then that person would be inconsistent.
No, it’s probably not true. It doesn’t make any sense. Nobody is going to make any money buying pot in Colorado at retail prices (and where you can only buy two ounces at a time) and ship it to the East Coast. The grow operations are highly enforced and each plant has an RFID tag that tracks the plant from warehouse to purchase. There isn’t much illegal pot in Colorado anymore because who wants to buy dope grown outdoors when you can get twice the potency at your local strip mall?
Maybe there is illegal pot transported through Colorado on the way from California to the East, but it has nothing to do with Colorado’s laws, just geography.
Not to mention Nebraska cops still have to have probable cause to pull you over and they still can’t search your car without a warrant.