Michigan Supreme Court To Consider Wyoming City Marijuana Ban

[+Malamute]

Michigan Supreme Court to consider Wyoming city marijuana ban

http://www.hollandsentinel.com/newsnow/x1959366783/Michigan-Supreme-Court-to-consider-Wyoming-city-marijuana-ban

 

Lansing —

The Michigan Supreme Court says it will consider the legality of a city's zoning ordinance that prohibits the use, manufacture or cultivation of medical marijuana.

The court issued an order Wednesday agreeing to hear an appeal filed by the city of Wyoming in the Grand Rapids area. Justices want to know if the zoning ordinance is superseded by Michigan's 2008 voter-approved medical marijuana law.
Significantly, the court also plans to consider if the state law is pre-empted by a federal law that makes marijuana use illegal.
Retired attorney and qualified medical marijuana patient John Ter Beek sued Wyoming after council members voted in 2010 to make marijuana use illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act. He lost in a Kent County court but won in the state appeals court

 

[GregS]

Thanks for that Mal. Saved me some postage.

[TheHarvester]

So what's the early thought on how this would go?

[+Malamute]

Likely for states rights on the Fed issue.... hopefully. :-)

 

Probably similar to COA Ter Beek but more nuanced and in depth.

[t-pain]

whats the over/under on MSC taking cases and agreeing with CoA ?

isnt it usually they affirm if they agree with CoA?

but if they disagree with CoA then they consider it?

 

sometimes they will hear a case and agree with portions of CoA and disagree with other parts.

like in mcqueen.

 

isnt it silly to try the legality of the whole law now? after 4 years of opinions?

i guess they want to squash that bit once and for all.

[Restorium2]

Marijuana is not a nuisance all on it's own so you can't 'zone' it. You can zone the nuisance part if you define the nuisance, smell, traffic, etc. It's a long row to hoe for a local ordinance to be effective against us home grows like they are trying. Marijuana is just fine growing right there anonymously in private. She minds her own business if you let her.

 

Because both the CSA and the MMMA have meaning when read together the federal CSA does not preempt the MMMA. 

Edited April 4, 2013 by Restorium2

[GregS]

It might result in a bump for the tenth amendment. Several challenges in other states to nix their mj laws using the supremacy clause have failed.

[+Malamute]

We will be the first in the Federal 6th if it goes that far.

[Herb Cannabis]

More garbage to add to my worry list, how does one heal with this negativity?

[GregS]

More garbage to add to my worry list, how does one heal with this negativity?

 

No worries mate. Get some pretzels and enjoy a nice, foamy, refreshing beverage. I am particular to IPAs and brown ales. A good session beer is mighty great too. It is to be remembered that we have the antidote to worry. Spark one up.

Edited April 4, 2013 by GregS

[GregS]

And to think that I would have been on my way to the post office this morning to send mail in this regard, had it not been for this post...

Edited April 4, 2013 by GregS

[GregS]

How might this play in Mr. Kormon's defense of the Flushing resident who is being tried under that city's ordinance?

[Herb Cannabis]

No worries mate. Get some pretzels and enjoy a nice, foamy, refreshing beverage. I am particular to IPAs and brown ales. A good session beer is mighty great too. It is to be remembered that we have the antidote to worry. Spark one up.

I'm an alcoholic, haven't had a drink since March of 1976.  I do enjoy a good root beer (Wal-Mart brand is my choice) with a fatty every now and then.

[GregS]

I'm an alcoholic, haven't had a drink since March of 1976.  I do enjoy a good root beer (Wal-Mart brand is my choice) with a fatty every now and then.

Root beer and a fatty. Now you're gettin' it.

[Chauncy Gardner]

Any idea when this will be decided? I may have to start growing and storing my ten year supply.

[painterdan]

I got a bad feeling about this.Judge Vivianno is not our friend,remember trix,that was his judge in warren.                                                                                                                                                                                                   

[knucklehead bob]

I got a bad feeling about this.Judge Vivianno is not our friend,remember trix,that was his judge in warren.                                                                                                                                                                                                   

Komorn got this case dismissed .

[Celliach]

It might result in a bump for the tenth amendment. Several challenges in other states to nix their mj laws using the supremacy clause have failed.

This has nothing to do with the 10th amendment.  The 10th only covers those things that the feds haven't made a law for yet.  The Controlled Substance Act covers this on a federal level so there's no room for a 10th amendment solution.

[GregS]

This has nothing to do with the 10th amendment.  The 10th only covers those things that the feds haven't made a law for yet.  The Controlled Substance Act covers this on a federal level so there's no room for a 10th amendment solution.

 

The Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

 

The garden variety argument in favor of the amendment is that Congress has no authority under the Constitution to overstep and establish laws that are not its prerogative as spelled out in that document, and that those matters belong, instead, to the states. That mj prohibition, along with other matters, is not within the scope of the document, is considered just that in our circles..

 

There is tension between the amendment and the Supremacy Clause, and rhetoric and real events on the ground play into the resolution between the two. Sometimes the more legally compelling call is tossed in favor of the will of the people, which is. I think, at play in the question here, or a moral choice so obviously necessary to maintain legitimacy. Think alcohol prohibition or voting rights. The SCOTUS decision to give a pass to the Affordable Care Act stunned observers. I like to think that the decision was so clearly the right thing to do that the Court could not have made a good moral choice otherwise, despite some very compelling constitutional arguments.  Sometimes an issue is so clearly defined to require adherence to one or the other, but cannabis use is apparently not one of those issues, at least as understood by enough key policy makers. Hence the argument.

Edited April 9, 2013 by GregS

[free country 420]

I hope we can shut these locals down quick

[painterdan]

Yes ,he did get his case dismissed but the judge and court gave him a lot of grief during the course of the trial,if i remember he made him quit using marijuana,making him go back on opiates for pain over the course of the trial.

[knucklehead bob]

Yes ,he did get his case dismissed but the judge and court gave him a lot of grief during the course of the trial,if i remember he made him quit using marijuana,making him go back on opiates for pain over the course of the trial.

This is standard operating procedure in most any Court room it has been my dis-pleasure to sit in . 

Edited April 10, 2013 by knucklehead bob

[peanutbutter]

This is standard operating procedure in most any Court room it has been my dis-pleasure to sit in . 

 

I hope it becomes standard to hold those judges personally accountable. Eye for eye would be nice, but probably not legal.

[GregS]

I hope it becomes standard to hold those judges personally accountable. Eye for eye would be nice, but probably not legal.

 

 

Give it up. Qualified Immunity protects them.

[kapt]

The Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

 

The garden variety argument in favor of the amendment is that Congress has no authority under the Constitution to overstep and establish laws that are not its prerogative as spelled out in that document, and that those matters belong, instead, to the states. That mj prohibition, along with other matters, is not within the scope of the document, is considered just that in our circles..

 

There is tension between the amendment and the Supremacy Clause, and rhetoric and real events on the ground play into the resolution between the two. Sometimes the more legally compelling call is tossed in favor of the will of the people, which is. I think, at play in the question here, or a moral choice so obviously necessary to maintain legitimacy. Think alcohol prohibition or voting rights. The SCOTUS decision to give a pass to the Affordable Care Act stunned observers. I like to think that the decision was so clearly the right thing to do that the Court could not have made a good moral choice otherwise, despite some very compelling constitutional arguments.  Sometimes an issue is so clearly defined to require adherence to one or the other, but cannabis use is apparently not one of those issues, at least as understood by enough key policy makers. Hence the argument.

correct....