This just in... OK and NE sue COLO over Marijuana (Durango: attorneys, lawsuits)

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by Sonic_Spork

One thing I wonder (and jazzlover might even be the one to ask)...because the law that makes MJ a prohibited substance was not a Constitutional Amendment, do you figure it is maybe easier for the federal government to reschedule or modify its legal status, as opposed to the procedure involved to put another amendment in place the way they had to do with alcohol prohibition? Like...which do you suppose is more difficult to reverse? I would think that amending the Constitution would be more of a hassle to get done than the other. So maybe those in support of legalization can view that as a silver lining?

Congress can enact legislation any time it wants to decriminalize MJ or delegate the regulation of MJ to the states. If the President signed it, then the debate would be settled.

Prohibitionists lobbied for (and got) the 18th Amendment to the US Constitution, rather than pursuing a statutory ban, because a Constitutional ban of alcohol would be much more difficult to repeal (requiring another Constitutional Amendment to repeal it) than a statutory ban. Also, by making the ban by US Constitutional Amendment, there could be no constitutionality challenge such as could be mounted if the ban were merely statutory. Going that direction was a calculated risk taken by the Prohibitionists because the threshold to enact a US Constitutional Amendment is very high. By contrast, the Colorado Constitution is notoriously easy to amend, and, thus, is a huge document chock full of conflicting and ill-written language. And, of course, a state constitutional amendment enjoys no protection from a challenge as to its constitutionality under the US Constitution. Over the years, Colorado has had numerous state constitutional amendments overturned by the Federal Courts.

[Sonic_Spork]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

Congress can enact legislation any time it wants to decriminalize MJ or delegate the regulation of MJ to the states. If the President signed it, then the debate would be settled.

Prohibitionists lobbied for (and got) the 18th Amendment to the US Constitution, rather than pursuing a statutory ban, because a Constitutional ban of alcohol would be much more difficult to repeal (requiring another Constitutional Amendment to repeal it) than a statutory ban. Also, by making the ban by US Constitutional Amendment, there could be no constitutionality challenge such as could be mounted if the ban were merely statutory. Going that direction was a calculated risk taken by the Prohibitionists because the threshold to enact a US Constitutional Amendment is very high. By contrast, the Colorado Constitution is notoriously easy to amend, and, thus, is a huge document chock full of conflicting and ill-written language. And, of course, a state constitutional amendment enjoys no protection from a challenge as to its constitutionality under the US Constitution. Over the years, Colorado has had numerous state constitutional amendments overturned by the Federal Courts.

Thanks!


I definitely expect a decisive ruling one way or another within the next few years or so on this. Whichever way they go, it's gonna come to a head sooner or later and they're going to have to deal with it.


Also I'm not certain what the balance was when you weigh the following things:

1. The cost to arrest, persecute, prosecute, jail...generally the cost to enforce prohibition.
2. The gains from civil asset forfeiture involved in said enforcement.

I wonder if it was always a losing proposition on its face, from the State's viewpoint...

But I do know the cost to users and their families. And I feel it's much higher than warrented by the "crime" that should be no crime. That cost is borne by society for decades, possibly generations. The easy answer is, "Then don't do drugs"...but see where decades of laws, school campaigns, billboards and TV commercials, etc. have brought us in that regard. It just doesn't seem to work. I'm all for trying something different.

[flyingcat2k]

I'm surprised, maybe I should not be, that this hasn't been mentioned. Article III Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states that disagreements between the States or the States and the U.S. Federal govt. must be originated (tried) in the SCOTUS. This eliminates all appeals, ect. It will be what the nine justices say it will be.

If Colorado loses, I doubt anyone will go to jail but all their money, real estate, cars, ect. may be seized by the State at some point.

[Mike from back east]

Some conservative "lawmakers" in Oklahoma are now urging their state's AG to drop the lawsuit in the belief that getting SCOTUS involved could have a detrimental effect on "states' rights."

Excerpt:

Several Oklahoma lawmakers are calling for state Attorney General Scott Pruitt to drop his lawsuit against Colorado over its legalization of recreational marijuana, arguing that it's the "wrong way to deal with the issue.".... last week, seven Republican state lawmakers, led by state Rep. Mike Ritze, expressed their concern that the case could significantly undermine states' rights, including Oklahoma's.

"If the federal government can force Colorado to criminalize marijuana," the letter reads, "using the exact same arguments, it could also force Oklahoma to criminalize a wide range of goods and activities that would be an anathema to the citizens of Oklahoma that we are sworn to serve. If the argument in the lawsuit were successful, the federal government could, in theory, adopt any UN treaty, then force the states, including Oklahoma, to help impose it," ...

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by Mike from back east

Some conservative "lawmakers" in Oklahoma are now urging their state's AG to drop the lawsuit in the belief that getting SCOTUS involved could have a detrimental effect on "states' rights."

Excerpt:

Several Oklahoma lawmakers are calling for state Attorney General Scott Pruitt to drop his lawsuit against Colorado over its legalization of recreational marijuana, arguing that it's the "wrong way to deal with the issue.".... last week, seven Republican state lawmakers, led by state Rep. Mike Ritze, expressed their concern that the case could significantly undermine states' rights, including Oklahoma's.

"If the federal government can force Colorado to criminalize marijuana," the letter reads, "using the exact same arguments, it could also force Oklahoma to criminalize a wide range of goods and activities that would be an anathema to the citizens of Oklahoma that we are sworn to serve. If the argument in the lawsuit were successful, the federal government could, in theory, adopt any UN treaty, then force the states, including Oklahoma, to help impose it," ...

Well, guess what, Oklahoma legislators--the Federal government can negotiate a treaty and impose its terms on the states. In fact, the states can not negotiate their own treaties or relations with any foreign country. Once again, that ol' Supremacy Clause (my emphasis added by underline and bold):

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

The irony here is that it was the MJ legalization crowd that has let the cat out of the bag. By legalizing MJ at the state level in violation of federal law, THEY opened the door for a lawsuit that could lead to a landmark ruling on state's rights vs. the supremacy of the Federal government. The overall record on federal supremacy challenges is clear--the Feds almost always win. In fact, a Civil War was fought over the issue and the Federal supremacists (the Union) won over the states' rights folks (the Confederacy). For the historically uninformed, that was the bone of contention that led to the Civil War--state's rights vs. Federal supremacy--slavery was just the controversy that brought the issue to a head, just like MJ may once again.

[VileTat]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

Well, guess what, Oklahoma legislators--the Federal government can negotiate a treaty and impose its terms on the states. In fact, the states can not negotiate their own treaties or relations with any foreign country.

I think these attorneys general would be making better use of their time suing the government to enforce our existing treaties then, like, say, the UN Convention against Torture...

[Rangerdude_Charlie]

I am joining the chorus and am just fed up with government stealing tax dollars for bloated, useless, and wasteful lawsuits against something like marijuana decriminalization. I remember hearing a story about border towns in NE being tired of having to fight the people bringing marijuana across state line. States rights are guaranteed in the 10th Amendment, well they are supposed to be. So much for following the constitution.

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by Rangerdude_Charlie

I am joining the chorus and am just fed up with government stealing tax dollars for bloated, useless, and wasteful lawsuits against something like marijuana decriminalization. I remember hearing a story about border towns in NE being tired of having to fight the people bringing marijuana across state line. States rights are guaranteed in the 10th Amendment, well they are supposed to be. So much for following the constitution.

"States rights" do not include circumventing duly enacted Federal law that has not been declared unconstitutional. That has been litigated numerous times over the years, too.

[VileTat]

Even the stubborn and LEO/prison-industrial-complex-centric DEA has acknowledged marijuana has medical benefits, yet it remains a "federally illegal" schedule 1 drug. To be schedule 1, you must have no medical benefits. I bet SCOTUS acknowledges that even federally it has already been legalized

[Idunn]

"Were we directed from Washington when to sow, & when to reap, we should soon want bread."
— Thomas Jefferson



Interesting point that Oklahoma may inadvertently have opened Pandora's box.

Yet there must be limits in this. Legal limits, meaning constitutional. Or that while the federal government, not the individual states, would be the proper authority to arrange treaties with foreign entities, surely only to the extent it has such authority, and definitely not in contravention of our constitution.

In example, if perhaps adopting a United Nations treaty concerning weapons that might contravene our Second Amendment. Especially if not the full federal government involved and maybe just the initiative of the executive. But even if such a measure were to be adopted by the fuller federal government per protocol, then still in error. For such a fundamental step, if to fundamentally alter or usurp any provision of our constitution, clearly involves all American citizens and should have their mandate.

Otherwise the founding charter of this nation but a paper charade that our king hides behind, ignoring or changing at his whim. The federal government and their lawyers might have a different take on this, but it should be clear to all what the founding basis of this nation is. No less the intent of our founding fathers who made it quite clear. That our government only exists or should to the extent it best reflects and serves the will of the people.

With on a local and state level that transpiring in Colorado concerning cannabis very much in the best tradition envisioned. True democracy within a republic.