9 ms·

The federal courts have consistently found that states do not have the right to override federal law. States certainly can make it difficult for federal office

by thrill 5y ago

The federal courts have consistently found that states do not have the right to override federal law. States certainly can make it difficult for federal officers to operate. The federal government certainly can make it difficult for state governments to meet their budget needs by withholding the passing to a state almost any federal monies they desire.

randyrand 5y ago
Marijuana went through this as well. States 'legalized' despite selling / consumption being illegal federally. It seems the states won that one, for whatever reason.
- sterlind 5y ago
  the legal fiction is that the Controlled Substances Act relies on the Interstate Commerce Clause to apply - Congress can only ban drugs on Federal land, and ban drugs as part of its power to regulate interstate commerce in drugs. Congress doesn't have arbitrary power over states (in theory!) so states would argue that since pot is only legalized within their borders, and isn't (legally) sold across state lines, the CSA doesn't apply. the Federal government would disagree, and would probably win in a fight citing Wickard v. Filburne or that machine gun case, but they couldn't force states to actually enforce their drug laws - it'd be a battle of attrition with the DEA, and it'd piss the states off. honestly, I think they decided it wasn't worth the fight since pot is pretty popular, so they let sleeping dogs lie.
  - mannerheim 5y ago
    > the Federal government would disagree, and would probably win in a fight citing Wickard v. Filburne or that machine gun case They did win that, see Gonzales v. Raich.
- GeekyBear 5y ago
  >It seems the states won that one, for whatever reason. Congress used the power of the purse to forbid the Federal Government spending any money to prosecute those in states that had made medical pot legal. >Congress included a provision in the 2015 spending bill prohibiting the DOJ from using any funds to prevent states that have legalized the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana from implementing these laws. In doing so, Congress was using the “power of the purse” as a check on executive power, one of its most important constitutional prerogatives. As James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers, this power “may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.” https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/04/obamas-medical-marijuana-prosecutions-probably-arent-legal.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/04/obamas-medical-m... Congress has renewed that provision every year since, and made it clear to the Trump administration that they would extend the ban to include states that had passed full legalization instead of just medical marijuana, if forced to do so.
mnouquet 5y ago
> States certainly can make it difficult for federal officers to operate Both the Constitution and the 10th Amendment make it pretty clear that the Federal government has no business in these area. This and the Commerce Clause "loophole" can hardly be used to mingle in private state business as long as the firearms don't cross state line.
fragileone 5y ago
On the other hand state courts have consistently found federal law doesn't have the right to infringe on the Constitution.
true_religion 5y ago
Yes and the states don’t have to help enforce federal law. If the federal government is forced to stick to laws that it can naturally enforce due to interstate or international commerce, and laws they will mobilize the national guard for (like desegregation) then we will live in a better world.
- sterlind 5y ago
  it will be very interesting to see if Missouri's $50,000 fine on officers who continue to enforce Federal laws would stick. the article quotes one of the state reps as saying "this just means we don't have to lift a finger to enforce those laws" - I think this is more akin to chopping lifted fingers off with a meat cleaver. it's enshrining "snitches get stitches." imagine if states pulled this tactic during integration..

by thrill 5y ago

randyrand 5y ago

Marijuana went through this as well. States 'legalized' despite selling / consumption being illegal federally. It seems the states won that one, for whatever reason.

sterlind 5y ago
the legal fiction is that the Controlled Substances Act relies on the Interstate Commerce Clause to apply - Congress can only ban drugs on Federal land, and ban drugs as part of its power to regulate interstate commerce in drugs. Congress doesn't have arbitrary power over states (in theory!) so states would argue that since pot is only legalized within their borders, and isn't (legally) sold across state lines, the CSA doesn't apply. the Federal government would disagree, and would probably win in a fight citing Wickard v. Filburne or that machine gun case, but they couldn't force states to actually enforce their drug laws - it'd be a battle of attrition with the DEA, and it'd piss the states off. honestly, I think they decided it wasn't worth the fight since pot is pretty popular, so they let sleeping dogs lie.
- mannerheim 5y ago
  > the Federal government would disagree, and would probably win in a fight citing Wickard v. Filburne or that machine gun case They did win that, see Gonzales v. Raich.
GeekyBear 5y ago
>It seems the states won that one, for whatever reason. Congress used the power of the purse to forbid the Federal Government spending any money to prosecute those in states that had made medical pot legal. >Congress included a provision in the 2015 spending bill prohibiting the DOJ from using any funds to prevent states that have legalized the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana from implementing these laws. In doing so, Congress was using the “power of the purse” as a check on executive power, one of its most important constitutional prerogatives. As James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers, this power “may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.” https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/04/obamas-medical-marijuana-prosecutions-probably-arent-legal.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/04/obamas-medical-m... Congress has renewed that provision every year since, and made it clear to the Trump administration that they would extend the ban to include states that had passed full legalization instead of just medical marijuana, if forced to do so.

mnouquet 5y ago

> States certainly can make it difficult for federal officers to operate Both the Constitution and the 10th Amendment make it pretty clear that the Federal government has no business in these area. This and the Commerce Clause "loophole" can hardly be used to mingle in private state business as long as the firearms don't cross state line.

fragileone 5y ago

On the other hand state courts have consistently found federal law doesn't have the right to infringe on the Constitution.

true_religion 5y ago

Yes and the states don’t have to help enforce federal law. If the federal government is forced to stick to laws that it can naturally enforce due to interstate or international commerce, and laws they will mobilize the national guard for (like desegregation) then we will live in a better world.

sterlind 5y ago
it will be very interesting to see if Missouri's $50,000 fine on officers who continue to enforce Federal laws would stick. the article quotes one of the state reps as saying "this just means we don't have to lift a finger to enforce those laws" - I think this is more akin to chopping lifted fingers off with a meat cleaver. it's enshrining "snitches get stitches." imagine if states pulled this tactic during integration..