Hiding Behind The Federal Laws

[CedarSpringsCG]

OK, so Schuette and Snyder and Jones and others keep saying our law is invalid because of Federal Laws. They are saying our law can not pre-empt federal law.

 

Here's the deal though. How I am now reading our MMMA2008, is that it does not legalize the use of Marijuana. It simply says we cannot be harassed or prosecuted for medical use of marijuana. This is an important distinction when talking about the preemption of the federal laws.

 

If it does not legalize it, but simply states we can't be prosecuted for it, then we are not preempting federal law. Federal law does not say States have to prosecute for Schedule 1 substances. All it does is say it is illegal, and places fines, sentences, etc at a federal level. And that's all our law does is say the state will not prosecute. So in the state, it is still considered illegal.

 

I know this is a step backwards. It would mean we actually are all criminals. Criminals protected from prosecution, harassment or discrimination. It is a step backwards that allows us to take 3 steps forward however, because then all this BS that Schuette is pulling saying the federal law trumps state law, is still all true, it pulls the rug out from under his feet. It would cause problems when running into questions such as a CCW, Drivers License, etc, however those can be dealt with in other ways.

 

I am undecided as to if I am correct in this, or just wrong, or if this is the right way to proceed until we can get MJ rescheduled as a Schedule 3 or 4 drug. Once that is done, we can go full force into legalizing MJ for medical use.

 

Any lawyers care to comment on this line of thinking? Am I on to something here?

 

Thanks

Cedar

[CedarSpringsCG]

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

[UrbanRangerKyle]

it seems reasonable to me however I am not a legal progessional

[Se7eN]

I'm not a lawyer but I am quite well versed in the law. The whole federal overrides state law argument is a bunch of bs. There is a big deep dark secret that no body in government will ever tell you about and it is the sole reason they believe federal trumps state. Now I'm not going to get into all of that because it would require me to write a book on here. However when one reads the constitution the 10th amendment very clearly gives states their own sovereignty meaning that each state can basically be considered its own country and there should be ZERO federal intrusion. Unfortunately we all know that this is not how it works today. There are many supreme court cases to back this statement including a very recent one which I posted just a few threads down Bond v. United States. Link to my Thread Even though this case is not related to medical marijuana it is a case where a woman argued that federal law was not valid and the supreme court sided with her. This case will come in handy if anyone is ever dealing with feds in court. I would highly suggest everyone on here read "The Global Sovereigns Handbook" by Johnnhy Liberty. It can be downloaded for free if you simply google it. It is probably the best book for anyone who wants to know the scale of legal corruption in the united states.

[lawyercaregiver]

Well I am a lawyer and I agree with this analysis although it lacks at least two items.

 

First, the 10th Amendment has long been a counter to the pre-emption clause and it states that "The powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved FOR THE STATES OR THE PEOPLE." This means if the federal government does not have SPECIFIC POWER IN THE CONSTITUTION TO DO IT THEN.....IT IS RESERVED FOR THE STATES OR THE PEOPLE.

 

If you are wondering whether there is a SPECIFIC RESERVE OF POWER in the Constitution to regulate drugs then go to the front of the class and answer your own question!

 

For the rest of us toking in the back of class, nope: no federal grant to regulate drugs or anything else. The whole basis of regulation is predicated on the commerce clause giving "Congress the power to regulate "INTERSTATE COMMERCE." While cannabis is surely "commerce" the MMMA clearly says it is NOT interstate!

 

Come and try to take my tiny INTRA-State private garden beeatchesssss. flower you!

 

Second, the federal controlled substances act SPECIFICALLY SAYS that Congress does not intend to occupy the whole field of drug regulation. In lay terms this means that a State law that does NOT contradict the federal law cannot be pre-empted!!! The whole argument is nucking futs!

 

darn I need to stay away from AK-47. Purple Kush only for you from now on......

[Bisharoo]

[jayt]

Regardless of whether or not the state law is legal in the eyes of the federal government these politicians are state employees voted in to conduct state business. They are paid by the state with state money. The design of the constitution is such to protect the states from an over-reaching federal government. Those who drafted the constitution foresaw these very problems. We need to focus more locally rather than federally. We are Michiganders first Americans second. The constitution was setup to protect that. But everyday we are brainwashed to take more pride in the federal government rather than our own state.

 

Synder, Schuette, Jones and anyone else who is employed by the State of Michigan needs to be working on State of Michigan problems not federal United States of America problems. There are thousands of US employees to handles those. Do the job you were hired to do not the one you want to do or leave. Our voter passed State of Michigan law tells them what to do. It tells them where to direct their resources.

[Big J]

Well in the us vs Arizona the judge's opinion found in favor of the fedral government. In that "the state of Arizona could not usurp the the power of the federal agencies." Man the police in the state of Arizona may not enforce federal laws federal agents needed to be contacted and they would enforce the fedral laws. However unless we can get the number of protesters as the illegal's do we are never going to get that kind of backing from the government.

[GregS]

I can't even imagine wanting to be the next Nixon.

 

Does it get more twisted?

[lawyercaregiver]

Blazing Saddles rant. LMFAO.

 

So that would make Bill Schuete, Mark Snyder and much of the law enforcement community in Oakland county the guys eating beans around the fire.

 

 

[mayorshaggy37]

In 2008 the Supreme Court would not hear a case out of California. The California Appeals court assessed that Medical Marijuana did not break Federal Law by stating, it is not within the Controlled Substance Act to practice medicine which is taken care of by the states under Federalism. It is meant to stop drug abuse. So when anybody states that Federal law trumps State law they really need to take a deeper look into it.

[mmurphy169]

Regardless of whether or not the state law is legal in the eyes of the federal government these politicians are state employees voted in to conduct state business. They are paid by the state with state money. The design of the constitution is such to protect the states from an over-reaching federal government. Those who drafted the constitution foresaw these very problems. We need to focus more locally rather than federally. We are Michiganders first Americans second. The constitution was setup to protect that. But everyday we are brainwashed to take more pride in the federal government rather than our own state.

 

Synder, Schuette, Jones and anyone else who is employed by the State of Michigan needs to be working on State of Michigan problems not federal United States of America problems. There are thousands of US employees to handles those. Do the job you were hired to do not the one you want to do or leave. Our voter passed State of Michigan law tells them what to do. It tells them where to direct their resources.

 

The design of the Constitution wasn't to protect the States from the Federal Government, it actually protects the Federal Government from the States. The Constitution is what gives the Federal Government its power. Until the drafting of the Constitution, there was no Federal Government, but there were states. Furthermore, the Federal Government is only supposed to act within the powers granted to it by the Constitution, all other areas are to be left to the states. However, in these areas of operation where the Feds are given power-interstate commerce being the foremost these days- the Federal Government trumps the States. If you look at the history of the commerce clause you will find cases where State's were being brought in front of the Supreme Court for enacting legislation and taking actions the interfered with Federal legislation on interstate commerce.

 

The key to the medical cannabis laws is that they are entirely intrastate issues. They deal with the cultivation and possession of cannabis within the state and do not deal with it outside of the state. However, the Supremes have declared that regardless of the intent and scope of our legislation, our medical cannabis will inevitably find it way across state lines and into those states that prohibit it. And because of the inevitable, interstate nature of the substance, the Federal Laws trump State laws.

[peanutbutter]

It is a criminal act to have morphine.

 

I guess you are still a criminal if you have a prescription. You just have a loophole.

 

Is that the same logic?

 

 

 

OK, so Schuette and Snyder and Jones and others keep saying our law is invalid because of Federal Laws. They are saying our law can not pre-empt federal law.

 

Here's the deal though. How I am now reading our MMMA2008, is that it does not legalize the use of Marijuana. It simply says we cannot be harassed or prosecuted for medical use of marijuana. This is an important distinction when talking about the preemption of the federal laws.

 

If it does not legalize it, but simply states we can't be prosecuted for it, then we are not preempting federal law. Federal law does not say States have to prosecute for Schedule 1 substances. All it does is say it is illegal, and places fines, sentences, etc at a federal level. And that's all our law does is say the state will not prosecute. So in the state, it is still considered illegal.

 

I know this is a step backwards. It would mean we actually are all criminals. Criminals protected from prosecution, harassment or discrimination. It is a step backwards that allows us to take 3 steps forward however, because then all this BS that Schuette is pulling saying the federal law trumps state law, is still all true, it pulls the rug out from under his feet. It would cause problems when running into questions such as a CCW, Drivers License, etc, however those can be dealt with in other ways.

 

I am undecided as to if I am correct in this, or just wrong, or if this is the right way to proceed until we can get MJ rescheduled as a Schedule 3 or 4 drug. Once that is done, we can go full force into legalizing MJ for medical use.

 

Any lawyers care to comment on this line of thinking? Am I on to something here?

 

Thanks

Cedar