Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Wednesday August 17 2016, @10:27PM   Printer-friendly
from the up-in-smoke dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18 2016, @12:39AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18 2016, @12:39AM (#389399)

    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.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18 2016, @12:44AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18 2016, @12:44AM (#389406)

    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

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18 2016, @09:35AM (#389540)

      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

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18 2016, @02:26PM (#389597)

        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

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18 2016, @07:29PM (#389690)

          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

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18 2016, @09:45PM (#389755)

            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

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 19 2016, @03:27PM (#390122)

              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

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 19 2016, @08:58PM (#390282)

                SCOTUS didn't "give itself a power", it decided that it had that power implied by the Constitution

                A distinction without a difference.

                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.

                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.

                You can keep writing "b-but the government is unconstitutional" as long as you want, it won't make it true.

                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

                  by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 20 2016, @01:07PM (#390557)

                  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

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18 2016, @07:10AM (#389509)

    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.

    For that to make any sense, there would first have to be legal interstate pot trade.