SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Courthouse News Service reports:
The Ninth Circuit ruled Tuesday that the Justice Department is barred from using federal funds to prosecute individuals in states where medical marijuana is legal and the individuals are in compliance with state law.
Federal prosecutors in California and Washington state indicted a number of individuals under the Controlled Substances Act on a range of offenses related to the growing and distribution of marijuana plants.
The defendants moved to dismiss the indictments, arguing that an appropriations bill passed by Congress in 2014 and renewed in 2015 and 2016 explicitly bars the Justice Department from using federal funds to interfere with states that have legalized medical marijuana.
The story goes on to characterize the legal battle and the reasoning behind the ruling. Basically that ruling boils down to the fact that the state laws apply in this case, and the funding laws passed by congress seem to be only a bit player in this ruling.
Writing for the three-judge panel, O'Scannlain said that Congress' appropriations bill expressly prohibits the Justice Department from spending money to keep 40 states — including California and Washington — the District of Columbia, Guam and Puerto Rico from implementing their own medical marijuana laws. And federal criminal defendants may fight the use of those funds, he said.
The panel appeared to go further than just enforcing the "No Federal Funds" use by stating:
"By officially permitting certain conduct, state law provides for non-prosecution of individuals who engage in such conduct. If the federal government prosecutes such individuals, it has prevented the state from giving practical effect to its law providing for non-prosecution of individuals who engage in the permitted conduct."
That seems as close as you can come to a "States Rights" line of reasoning and still be welcome in liberal circles. The decision is reportedly being carefully scrutinized in the other circuit, and I would expect to see the government seek another venue.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Wednesday August 17 2016, @10:55PM
That's not true. They opted for the amendment as a way of preventing the courts from disagreeing with them.
By your reasoning, the FDA doesn't have authority to tell people they can't have arsenic laced restoratives either.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18 2016, @12:00AM
Ah, yes, "I like policy X, therefore it's constitutional." Or, "Not having the government do X would be absurd! Therefore, it's constitutional." Much of what the federal government does is unconstitutional; sorry to burst your bubble, but maybe we should be amending the constitution if we feel the government needs more power. But then, you don't have any principles, so who cares.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Francis on Thursday August 18 2016, @12:43AM
That's not really how the constitution works. The Supreme Court decides whether or not something is constitutional. Sometimes they screw it up, but the Supreme Court has always been the arbiter of what is and isn't constitutional.
As for amending it goes, go ahead. There's nothing to stop you from amending the constitution other than the fact that most people agree with the interpretation being used.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18 2016, @12:50AM
That's not really how the constitution works.
Sometimes they screw it up
So you admit that they can be wrong, which is a position I don't disagree with.
but the Supreme Court has always been the arbiter of what is and isn't constitutional.
If you intended to say that they have some legal powers, that's obvious and I never disagreed with that. It's so obvious that I don't know why you or anyone else would bother stating it. What is the fucking point?
There's nothing to stop you from amending the constitution other than the fact that most people agree with the interpretation being used.
I don't know what most people agree with, and neither do you. But if most people believe something wrong, then it's still wrong.
And you're the one who needs to advocate amending the constitution, since you're the one with the problem with the existing constitution (as opposed to the courts' interpretation of it, which are two different matters). Few people seem to care about the actual constitution. When it appears they are following the constitution, it is usually because they like/dislike a policy and want to find an excuse to implement it/remove it. People with principles are rare.
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Thursday August 18 2016, @02:47AM
[Lizard Flagship above New York]
Romney: Attempting to bliss humanity will surely kill you.
Lizard Queen: Then I will die, but not before I fulfill my promise to my subjects and show them that humanity cannot nor will not defeat us.
[Lizard Queen attempts bliss via the moon matrix.]
Lizard Queen: You feel only peace. Friends, only peace.
[The Lizard Queen's eyes begin to bleed severely.]
Lizard Queen: Only my bliss can comfort you.
Romney: Yes, my queen, stop this! Will kill you!
[Lizard Queen shoves Romney away.]
Lizard Queen: Only my bliss can save you. Feel!.. my bliss!
[Lizard Queen faints.]
Lizard Princess: Mother, stop! I can do it for you. You sense only peace.
Scene 24, Interior DEO
Various people: Holy fuck shit just got real!
Lizard Princess: Feel only comfort, only calm, only love. I am your sole protector, and your keeper. Only my Bliss. I AM all you need.
(Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Thursday August 18 2016, @08:15AM
Lizard Princess: Feel only comfort, only calm, only love. I am your sole protector, and your keeper. Only my Bliss. I AM all you need.
OK, tsubasa! Your megalomania has exceeded all bounds! We will not bow down to you, until you definitively identify as one lizard gender or the other, or the other other, for only then will we know the proper way to honor you as our Keeper, our Protector, our Changer of the Newspaper on the Bottom of the Cage, our Bliss that knows only the Bliss of things always being about tsubasa, since the Lizard Queen, The Queen of the Lizards, the Birther of the Egg of Creation, the Mother of all mothers, the, oh, crap, I have gotten a cramp in my poetic muscle. Carry on, just not quite as much as before.
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Thursday August 18 2016, @03:59AM
If that's true, care to explain to me the reasoning for the USSC granting itself (a concept we can revisit later) the power of judicial review [wikipedia.org] via Marbury vs Madison?
The cognitive dissonance should make your head ache if you haven't already digested Marbury vs Madison's second gem: "a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument." I may have missed reading about the Constitutional amendment that was used to grant the USSC, which was brought into existence by said Constitution, the power it otherwise simply took for itself regardless of the lack of authority to do so.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18 2016, @08:58AM
By that logic supreme court cannot do miscarriage of justice. In fact the constitution could as well not exist as its definition is "whatever supreme court says it is".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18 2016, @09:19AM
Ah, yes, "I like policy X, therefore it's constitutional." Or, "Not having the government do X would be absurd! Therefore, it's constitutional." Much of what the federal government does is unconstitutional; sorry to burst your bubble, but maybe we should be amending the constitution if we feel the government needs more power. But then, you don't have any principles, so who cares.
Ah, yes, "I don't like policy X, therefore it's unconstitutional." Or, "Having the government do X would be absurd! Therefore, it's unconstitutional." Much of what the federal government does is constitutional; sorry to burst your bubble, but maybe we should be amending the constitution if we feel the government needs less power. But then, you don't have any principles, so who cares.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday August 18 2016, @02:40PM
Very clever, we're all impressed with your ability to shout "I know you are but what am I"
But back here in reality - the constitution explicitly denies the federal government any powers not explicitly granted to it. So unless you can point to a clause in the constitution explicitly granting the federal government the power to do X, then it is unconstituional for it to do so. That they do so anyway is politics as usual.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18 2016, @07:46PM
Absolutely, and when SCOTUS decides "Constitution says the federal government has power X," then it is constitutional for it to do so, regardless of how much armchair lawyers on SN wish it wouldn't be.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18 2016, @09:52PM
Did you read your comment aloud to yourself before you posted it? Did it sound stupid to you then? Why did you continue to post it?
Your assertion: "the government can do X because the government says it can do X."
Newsflash: the SCOTUS is government, brought into existence by the same Constitution as the rest of US fedgov.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 19 2016, @06:52AM
Oh my ... I see your problem now, you're an idiot (you started the ad hominem crap).
May I remind you of a very important principle of said Constitution: separation of powers. (In theory) SCOTUS is the judicial branch and is independent of the executive and legislative ones.
So, it's: "executive can do X because judicial thinks that legislative says so."
Now that's the theory. If you reckon separation of powers is broken or inefficient, maybe you should consider it's time to either present yourself for election and change the system or finally use these 1st and 2nd Amendments, shouldn't you?
But noooo, you prefer the "let's be very courageous and brave and insult people I disagree with on SN, it will change the world I live in." kind of approach.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 19 2016, @08:40PM
Let's break your assertion down to its basic components:
Legislative: government branch, brought into existence by creation of US Constitution
Executive: government branch, brought into existence by creation of US Constitution
Judicial: government branch, brought into existence by creation of US Constitution
"Government branch says government branch can do X because government branch said so." Nope, still sounds just as stupid as it did the first time. Care to revise?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Thursday August 18 2016, @12:09AM
Any Federal authority is Constitutionally limited to interstate transport and sales. So unless the source materials or output product was transported across State lines, the Federal government has no Constitutional authority to involve itself. States are not so neutered they cannot handle noxious substances. This setup is designed to allow States to choose to do things differently, should they so decide to do so, without conflicting with Federal laws against interstate or international commerce in certain things.
What's done bonkers is we removed any input from the State level in our Federal government a century ago, which not coincidentally matches up with the leviathan's growth. Foreign countries have embassies, our States have none. Until the States start asserting their proper place in a tiered model of government, ruling against interference by Federal agents, there is little legal basis to begin defending against judges and agents who are selected exclusively Federally.
The fun will begin when the DEA starts raiding and arresting people who are completely in compliance with their State's laws and the enforcers in that State come and stop them. All it will take is the arrest and prosecution of a few DEA agents. Sadly, too often those State-funded enforcers will instead join in with the Federal agents rather than standing with their licensing authority.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday August 18 2016, @12:23AM
> What's done bonkers is we removed any input from the State level in our Federal government a century ago
I sadly can find ample evidence that the US Senate is still undead and kicking.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18 2016, @12:39AM
That is not the limit, Congress can pass laws in three broad categories:
First, Congress may regulate the use of the channels of interstate commerce;
Second, Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in Interstate Commerce, even though the threat may come only from intrastate activities;
Finally, Congress's commerce authority includes the power to regulate those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce (i.e., those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce, whether by themselves, in the case of non-economic activity, or in the aggregate, in the case of economic activity).
The use and growth of drugs has been ruled economic activity because even growth by a single person for their own use affects the drug trade, which in the aggregate has a huge effect on interstate commerce.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18 2016, @12:44AM
That's what the courts have said, but that interpretation of the commerce clause is nothing short of insanity, since it gives the federal government far more power than had ever been intended. In reality, they can only regulate activities that are both interstate and commerce; it's merely a matter of getting our treacherous courts to recognize that simple fact.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18 2016, @09:35AM
that interpretation of the commerce clause is nothing short of insanity
Because you said so, Wise One?
it gives the federal government far more power than had ever been intended
Because you said so, Wise One?
In reality, they can only regulate activities that are both interstate and commerce
Because you said so, Wise One?
it's merely a matter of getting our treacherous courts to recognize that simple fact.
Please go look up a definition of what a fact is. Every single statement you made above is an opinion, not a fact.
Note that I don't agree or disagree with you, I'm just pointing at the *fact* that you're stating your own personal opinions, none of which are facts. That's the problem when *interpreting* the Constitution or some other laws, there are no facts, only opinions. Now if only the Founding Fathers had let no place to interpretation ... well, that would have been an even worst disaster in my opinion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18 2016, @02:26PM
How's this for a set of facts for you?
- The US federal government was brought into existence via the Constitution
- The Constitution is a list of delegated powers
- Normal people, no different in principle than your or I, are the source of the powers delegated to the US fedgov via the Constitution
- Something not already possessed cannot be delegated.
If I do not have authority to do a given thing as a normal person, I have no authority to delegate that same given task to anyone else. And neither do you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18 2016, @07:29PM
And again, your interpretation is that they lack the authority to do whatever you're in disagreement with, whereas the Supreme Court's interpretation is that they have said authority. Unfortunately for you, constitutionally speaking, the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution and laws is the one that matters since they are the judicial Power and you're not.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18 2016, @09:45PM
The power of the courts to determine the constitutionality of law is termed judicial review.
Where in the Constitution is the delegation of that power to federal courts? I'll save you the trouble of looking: it's not. The USSC gave itself the power of judicial review [wikipedia.org] using the case of Marbury vs Madison in 1803.
You're saying that you're perfectly okay with the idea of a government created by the Constitution ignoring the very law upon which it depends for its very existence by granting itself powers via fiat and not by the only lawful processes of a Constitutional amendment or convention. You say you're perfectly fine with criminal government.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 19 2016, @03:27PM
The USSC gave itself the power of judicial review using the case of Marbury vs Madison in 1803.
Yes, and no. SCOTUS didn't "give itself a power", it decided that it had that power implied by the Constitution. This has been reviewed by many people for the past 200 years and most agree with the decision. Now the decision may have been wrong but in a democracy "right" is what the elected people decide and Congress has yet to amend the Constitution to fix this. Find enough people agreeing with your view, get elected and change things.
You're saying that you're perfectly okay with the idea of a government created by the Constitution ignoring the very law upon which it depends
Nope, never said that.
by granting itself powers via fiat and not by the only lawful processes of a Constitutional amendment or convention.
Nope, never said that either.
You say you're perfectly fine with criminal government.
non sequitur much ?
To clarify, I'm not okay with the US government (all 3 branches) current status, but I'd like to see rational thinking and action being used to put it back in place rather than incoherent rambling about the unconstitutionality of things settled for the past 200 years.
So what I *am* saying is that I'm sad to see a small group people using the irrational "It is what it is, because we said so" whining. Get elected and change things, start a revolution, hell, even become a Justice, I don't care, but do something.
You can keep writing "b-but the government is unconstitutional" as long as you want, it won't make it true.
Something bothers me though: neither telecommunication nor space exploration are explicitly stated in the Constitution, does that mean the internet and the landing on the Moon are unconstitutional?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 19 2016, @08:58PM
A distinction without a difference.
The USA is not a democracy, and was intentionally set up to avoid becoming one. A Constitutional Republic was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the 50%+1.
What makes "the US government is almost entirely criminal" true is a simple examination of government's authority. The Constitution was created at the Philadelphia Convention, using the authority of individual people held by elected delegates. A power not possessed cannot be delegated, so the maximum authority of US government (absent consent, which can be revoked at any time for any or no reason) is limited to that of a single individual. Anything outside of the delegated authority is outside the law of the Constitution, which in other words is literally criminal.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 20 2016, @01:07PM
The USA is not a democracy
True. It's an improbable mix between a plutocracy and a theocracy.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18 2016, @07:10AM
For that to make any sense, there would first have to be legal interstate pot trade.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Francis on Thursday August 18 2016, @12:46AM
So, the fact that the Supreme Court thinks the federal government has authority doesn't matter at all?
I'm sorry, but that's not how our system of government works. If you happen to disagree, write your representatives and demand a constitutional convention to change the constitution to your preferred interpretation. As of now the Supreme Court seems just fine with the current interpretation of the Constitution.
Personally, I'm happy that I can buy medication and food without having founded fears of getting sick because there wasn't any oversight. Not to mention the cost savings that come from not having to have my specific state sign off on it's safety and efficacy.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18 2016, @12:53AM
I'm sorry, but that's not how our system of government works. If you happen to disagree, write your representatives and demand a constitutional convention to change the constitution to your preferred interpretation. As of now the Supreme Court seems just fine with the current interpretation of the Constitution.
It's also possible for the Supreme Court to overrule its past decisions. Having new people on the court can potentially allow this to happen, even if it's unlikely. That's just the arbitrary, subjective nature of the courts at work. The courts could even say that putting an entire group of people in internment camps is alright simply because some of them might be bad, regardless of what the constitution says. But hey, they're the courts, so stop complaining.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Thursday August 18 2016, @03:33PM
States rights, eh? That's the justification the Confederacy used when they tried to leave the Union. We all know they wanted slavery. Should the North have just stood aside and let them walk? Should we not have passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to finally stop the old South from disenfranchising voters on a racist basis with their Jim Crow bullshit state laws?
Slavery is evil, as anyone who has let an employer catch them in financial indentureship should know. "Need you to come in and work on Sunday, mmmkay," and you can't say no because then you'd be fired and you'd miss your house and car payments and soon be kicked out of your home and see your car repossessed, and your family would disown you. Slavery was a huge, very embarrassing presence that completely contradicted and made a mockery of the Founding Father's professions of a more perfect union through freedom and individual rights. Moreover, it is just plain inefficient. It's no coincidence that at the time of the Civil War, the South's economy and population was far smaller than the North's.
We keep having this argument, even now, 150 years after the end of slavery. Lot of employers really seem to prefer slaves to employees. They complain that the workers are unskilled, lazy, and ungrateful, not seeing that they created the conditions that lead to those attitudes, Their managers cling to this sophistry that people are lazy and must be constantly prodded, goaded, and otherwise forced to do work, and watched to make sure they are working. They read Ayn Rand, and they really believe in nonsense like Trickle Down Economics, despite truckloads of evidence to the contrary.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Whoever on Thursday August 18 2016, @02:01AM
I am not the GP poster, but I would agree that the FDA doesn't have that authority, if the restoratives did not cross state lines.
It's up to the states to tell people that they can't have arsenic laced restoratives