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: 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?