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: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Wednesday August 17 2016, @11:58PM
Does anyone really care about state's rights? I mean, people care about a government that rules over them implementing specific policies. And when the state and federal government disagree, they try to have the one that agrees with them have jurisdiction. But, as a goal for its own sake, I don't see why anyone would care.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by JNCF on Thursday August 18 2016, @12:35AM
Does anyone really care about state's rights?
Yes. Not me; I think US states are far too big, and prefer the idea of city-states. The same idea applies, though. There are some laws that I would like to see implemented in other places, but I have no desire to force the issue. I empathise with the fact that people from different cultures want to live under different laws, and I wouldn't want them to dictate my life. Why should I take it upon myself to dictate theirs?
Another angle altogether, which I place less importance on: I believe that large bureaucracies are petri-dishes for corruption and inefficiency, so I think that decentralised governing systems have some very interesting advantages compared to centralised ones. I think the primary reason that centralised governments have won out over decentralised ones is military might, which might be a good reason to fear being in a small fish... but it doesn't exactly cast the large predators in a wonderful light. Decentralised military power (and food/energy production, and manufacturing of certain products) is obviously needed before local governance is a real option for the modern world. It may never be. I consider this an open question that may be answered when open-source WMDs become available.
But, as a goal for its own sake, I don't see why anyone would care.
Frankly, I'm a nihilist. I can't argue that you should care about anything. As for why I would care, human empathy is irrational. I understand that it will lead other people to other have other concerns, such as maximizing happiness even if that necessitates invading/occupying other cultures to force your values on them. I can't say you shouldn't have that goal, and I understand why you would.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18 2016, @01:00AM
I don't care much about state's rights, but I do care about having the government follow the constitution. I don't see why a lawless government would be desirable to anyone, and yet, in many ways, that's exactly what we have.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 18 2016, @02:14PM
Does anyone really care about state's rights?
Yes, it can curb the power of the federal government which I think is necessary in this day. And like most political things, people care if it matters to what they want and don't care otherwise.
In that light, you could ask whether people care about one of the other options, increasing central government power. About that a fair number of people care a great deal precisely because it interferes with their lives.