True enough. A Conservative Republican administration may decide to withhold ALL Federal funds and assistance from CA until they repeal the law.
Given that California pays more to the Feds than they receive in services and such, we’d just shut off the tap from our end as well. Let’s see who screams first.
Never happen. The second any administration even suggested such a thing Congress and the courts would be all over them. Something about a “constitution?”
Exactly how do you shut off the tap? Somehow convince al those people and companies in California that they’re really not obligated to pay income taxes to the Federal government? You realize they don’t actually hand the money to a person from California, who drives it to Washington D.C in a big armored car, don’t you?
Withholding federal funds would work, but woudl also pretty much guarantee that your administration wouldn’t get re-elected. Has anyone ever gotten elected without taking California? Don’t thye have like 269 of the 270 electoral votes?
It’s possible; it’s called a tax revolt. I could see something like that happening if the Feds did cut off all Federal funds. Regardless of the outcome I really doubt the result would be good for the President who tried such a thing though.
[QUOTE=silenus;13038873Never happen. The second any administration even suggested such a thing Congress and the courts would be all over them. Something about a “constitution?”[/QUOTE]
Excuse me, but they HAVE done such things in the past, such as forcing the lowering of highway speeds to 55 by threatening to withhold highway funding from any state that didn’t comply.
So … that could backfire seriously if the state could make up the deficit from tax and licensing of marijuana producers, sellers and buyers.
I could seriously see California checking out the money they make from pot, and the feds threatening, and California saying “And your point is? We don’t need your money. Don’t let the doorknob hit you on the ass on your way out. KTHXBYE.”
That was in the law Congress passed, and was not unilaterally imposed by the Administration. It is also directly related to the matter at hand. Food stamp funding does not get cutoff due to speed limits.
Congress could pass some law saying law enforcement funds would not go to states legalizing weed, but voting against cops is unlikely to fly.
I suspect any federal court would stop any unilateral cutoff of funds in under five minutes, and both parties in Congress would pass new legislation against this, since everyone their likes their laws to be obeyed.
Not even people in California smoke that much!
It would be pretty messy, since the only way of cutting off the flow to Washington is to get employers to redirect withholding to the state, and I don’t see why they would do something which causes them to break federal laws for the benefit of the state. A judicial solution would be much better.
Cutting off all federal funding might lead to a different answer there, though - the Supreme Court found that a conditional granting of federal funds was acceptable in that case in part because the condition was reasonably related to the expenditure (highway funding and drinking age), and that the amount made conditional was small enough so as to be merely a pressure and not a compulsion for the state to comply, in that case 5% of the total highway funds. If the feds made 100% of all expenditures conditional on state compliance, the courts might not go for it.
Sorta. He stated multiple times that states with medical marijuana dispensaries would not be bothered by the DEA. I was on the fence during the election, and that was what swayed me. He lied, IMHO, to get votes. I will not help reelect him.
I must, reluctantly, agree with this. If Obama and Holder can unilterally decide to ignore their oaths to enforce the laws, then they set a precedent in which the next president – let’s say it’s Sarah Palin – can make a similar decision.
Though I expect she’ll do just that for the whole 18 months of her term.
I believe the feds have indeed said that the DEA will no longer go after medical marijuana. He never promised anything about what would happen if a state fully legalized it, so I don’t see where there is any lying going on here.
I’m only sometimes called “conservative,” but I do support gun rights and states’ rights.
The gun cases I’ve heard of that seem related to states’ rights are those where states are imposing greater restrictions than the federal government, so I don’t see how that analogizes here.
For that matter, I don’t quite see how states’ rights could come into this issue at all.