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, 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?