quote:
wouldn't that ruin the idea of dual sovereignty for Feds and states as far as drug laws go and have a big impact on federal and state prosecution?

that's my thing. if the states can't have their own drug laws, then any law in "conflict" with federal drug law would become invalidated. that would create chaos and leave the feds as the de facto drug prosecutor, which would implode their system.

also, i read an article yesterday that went through this. the DOJ said they're not going to prosecute these crimes and the USSC can't force the federal or state governments to execute their laws. so basically even if the USSC said this scheme was illegal, the only thing that would really become illegal is the regulations of weed. that would leave Colorado with legal, unregulated weed.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Iosh

Bureau of Interstellar Immigration

Member since Dec 2012

18941 posts

Posted on 12/20/14 at 4:19 pm to SlowFlowPro

quote:
and the USSC can't force the federal or state governments to execute their laws.

This line of precedent is vulnerable because Scalia is an a-hole. Remember, he's already shown in Raich that his federalism principles are subordinate to his social conservatism.

The majority for Printz was exactly the same as it was in Lopez and Morrison. I suspect that this might end up being the Raich of the anti-commandeering line of precedent, where Scalia stands athwart the court and says "okay, but not this far because weed is for hippies."

(This is also assuming Roberts and Alito decide the same way as Rehnquist and O'Connor, which is iffy.)

This post was edited on 12/20/14 at 4:20 pm

2 ...

Report Post

Political Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board