What's new
By:

More federal stupidity...

My statement was in response to the idea that this is a big enough issue for the federal government to threaten full-blown "war on drug" actions rather than taking it through congress to get the state law repealed or whatever the mechanism is. Is it really the best route to stage federal raids on state-licensed facilities? Is that really the best method they can come up with to get a state to enforce a federal law? It is ludicrous to me all the ways the government finds to blow money on nothing.

Kicky, what is the legal method the federal government should follow to bring a "rogue" state into line?
 
LogGrad98 said:
My statement was in response to the idea that this is a big enough issue for the federal government to threaten full-blown "war on drug" actions rather than taking it through congress to get the state law repealed or whatever the mechanism is. Is it really the best route to stage federal raids on state-licensed facilities? Is that really the best method they can come up with to get a state to enforce a federal law? It is ludicrous to me all the ways the government finds to blow money on nothing.

Kicky, what is the legal method the federal government should follow to bring a "rogue" state into line?
Click to expand...

A court has to find that the state law is pre-empted and therefore invalid. That requires a test case.

Given how open these things are I doubt a real raid is necessary but it does require that they prosecute someone and then have a hearing/briefing schedule on the preemption issue.

I think the direction of your question (and the title of your thread) is revealing about your political proclivities. The conflict (and thus the cost) is caused by states drafting laws that are obviously invalid. Why aren't you bemoaning state-level stupidity?
 
LogGrad98 said:
My statement was in response to the idea that this is a big enough issue for the federal government to threaten full-blown "war on drug" actions rather than taking it through congress to get the state law repealed or whatever the mechanism is. Is it really the best route to stage federal raids on state-licensed facilities? Is that really the best method they can come up with to get a state to enforce a federal law? It is ludicrous to me all the ways the government finds to blow money on nothing.

Kicky, what is the legal method the federal government should follow to bring a "rogue" state into line?
Click to expand...

What's really jacked up is that Arizona has a law on illegal immigrant enforcement that mirrors the federal law, and they WANT TO ENFORCE FEDERAL LAW in their state but then they get sued for the attempt.

The commerce clause has been molested by libs from its infancy.
 
Sirkickyass said:
Why aren't you bemoaning state-level stupidity?
Click to expand...


Can't they both be stupid? Oh I forget, you are a lawyer...


Right now, imo, the lion's share of the stupidity in this is on the federal side. Deal with it, end it, put the baby to bed, and stop dragging it out and burning cash *****-footing around. Then the burden shifts entirely back to the state for starting the whole mess to begin with.

It smacks too much of politics. The issue is only worth pursuing when it nears election time, and that is why they won't just end it, so it can be used as a chip when it is needed. Worried you look soft on drugs? Raid or sue Californian state-licensed marijuana farms to show everyone you are tough. Worried you look too hard and cold? Make sure everyone knows you left the marijuana farms alone so they can keep helping the ill while you study the issue since it is so complicated.

The state should not have gone down that road to begin with, but since they did the federal government has a responsiblity to the tax payers to take care of it quickly and efficiently, not drag it out.
 
Sirkickyass said:
A court has to find that the state law is pre-empted and therefore invalid. That requires a test case.

Given how open these things are I doubt a real raid is necessary but it does require that they prosecute someone and then have a hearing/briefing schedule on the preemption issue.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Are the feds then prosecuting people that they caught in the raid? Would that then be the test case?
 
Millsapa said:
What's really jacked up is that Arizona has a law on illegal immigrant enforcement that mirrors the federal law, and they WANT TO ENFORCE FEDERAL LAW in their state but then they get sued for the attempt.

The commerce clause has been molested by libs from its infancy.
Click to expand...

No.
 
colton said:
Interesting. Are the feds then prosecuting people that they caught in the raid? Would that then be the test case?
Click to expand...

I'm not closely following what they're doing with each person they catch in the raid but there are a variety of reasons they might not be a test case.

For example, if a person caught in a raid decides to do a plea deal rather than fight it they'll simply plead guilty to some offense and do their time. As a result, there was no "case" where the conflict between state and federal law was actually litigated.

Another person could choose to strategically NOT assert that state law made their activities legal for a variety of reasons (for example, they want to preserve the business and don't want a federal court ruling strking down the state law). As a result, the conflict between the laws would never be at issue in their case.

In order for a proper test case in the true criminal litigation sense to exist someone would have to both be prosecuted under the federal law and assert the state law as a defense to the prosecution.

The other alternative is that some entity could sue the state for a declaratory judgment. That's frankly probably a lot cleaner and easier but it comes with its own set of complications and a variety of standing issues.
 
Millsapa said:
What's really jacked up is that Arizona has a law on illegal immigrant enforcement that mirrors the federal law, and they WANT TO ENFORCE FEDERAL LAW in their state but then they get sued for the attempt.

The commerce clause has been molested by libs from its infancy.
Click to expand...

Not a commerce clause issue.
 
Millsapa said:
2 separate thoughts which was why I didn't include them in the same paragraph
Click to expand...

Silly me. Obviously it was not predictable in any way that someone would think that two thoughts following one another would be related.

Some people are frankly morons and shouldn't be tolerated.
 
Well obviously I wasn't talking about you Millsapa. You see, those were two separate thoughts which was why I didn't include them in the same paragraph.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top