Who's running this show, anyway?
Jun. 7th, 2005 08:52 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
flatvurm[Editor's note: This might qualify as a rant, but I'm more confused than angry...I have more questions than bile. This is an open call to law geeks; law is not my forte. If I am making erroneous assumptions, poor leaps of logic, false statements, whatever, please call me on it.]
Well, apropos to recent discussions on this here blog, a blow was dealt recently to the antiprohibitionist movement in the U.S. (such as it is). As many, if not all, of you are probably aware by now, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its ruling that the federal government does, indeed, have the right to prosecute drug offenders as it sees fit, regardless of a given state's laws. (San Jose Mercury News article; lots of others.) Specifically, medical marijuana laws (like those in California, etc.) will not shield users of medical marijuana from the federal criminal prohibition thereof. More specifically, the Court has said that Congress has the right to enforce the laws it has laid down, regardless of the law governing a specific state.
Now...you might imagine that I was initially fairly outraged/disappointed by this. Not, like, on the scale of the last Presidential election, but still...what a drag. Then I hit the brakes, and I started thinking about it. Did the Supreme Court just...do what it's supposed to do?
I admit I can't answer that. I don't actually know what the Supreme Court is supposed to do. Like in a mission-statement kind of way. I do know (or gather) that people don't like it much when they make their own laws. Fair enough...that's why we have a legislative branch. So they're there, to...what...interpret the law? Make decisions on the fine points and grey areas? Okay, that's cool. But this was...different. To me, anyway. It seems like a case of: state law says one thing (it's okay to use marijuana under certain medically-defined situations), federal law says another (it's not okay to use marijuana at all). So, unless I'm missing some intricacy of this case, it's a matter of deciding which law takes precedence...state or federal.
I see how this poses a problem. If not the Supreme Court, then to what entity could we possibly turn to make this decision? Immediately I feel that, purely on the basis of weighing state jurisdiction vs. federal, the Supreme Court has a vested interest in favoring federal jurisdiction. It occurs to me, though, as I think about that...is the really true? Does the Supreme Court (as an entity...I'm not talk about politics) really have any reason to trample on states's rights? Is their own power in any way eroded if state jurisdiction is strengthened? Again, I don't know. In any case, though, who else could possibly be asked to make this decision? And in a relatively unbiased way, even.
So, assume the Supreme Court is who we turn to for answers in cases like these. How do they decide? My first assumption is that they interpret the Constitution and make a decision based on that. So what is it in the Constitution that gives Congress precedence in this situation (specifically, a situation in which state law is governing a matter which does not involve federal interests, like foreign policy or interstate commerce).
So there's that. The reason I got milder in my reaction to the Supreme Court decision is because I figured...hey, I guess that's just what they do, maybe? Or is this unusual...or rather, is this actually a big thing, slapping down state law like this in favor of federal? What bothers me about all this is not the decision...maybe that decision was made long ago. What bothers me is that it was even a question.
So you're the federal government. You've made this law, and in it you say, "For the good of our people, I decree it a crime to engage in such-and-such behavior." Now your buddy (?), state government, makes a law that says, "For the good of our people, I decree it not a crime to engage in such-and-such behavior, under the supervision of a licensed medical professional. In cases not covered by this law, we defer to federal government."
I ask you, and not rhetorically, what possible motivation does the federal government have for stepping on state government's toes? Clearly said state has made a decision it feels is in its best interests. And in the case of this specific issue, when the only motivation, it seems, for prohibition is for people's own good, the state has found a way in which the people's good can be better served by breaking this prohibition. Where's the issue? Are we really that far gone, that marijuana (and I see no reason not to be specific...it is a medical marijuana law that's been stepped on) is so inherently evil that the federal government's blanket prohibition on it must be enforced, regardless of any other legislation? How does anyone benefit from federal agents ignoring state law and busting medical marijuana users? I again remind the audience that, in the case of marijuana grown and provided by local collectives (as in the case of medical marijuana in California, for example), there is no issue of foreigh policy, foreign trade, or interstate commerce to be addressed. How is this the federal government's jurisdiction at all?
So...while I'm at it...what motivation would the Supreme Court have for keeping it thus? Is that in the interests of justice? Of law? But I digress.
So it's clear that there's a lot I don't understand about this situation; if anyone's got any kind of answers, I'm all ears. But here's really where I'm headed...
What now? Now that the Supreme Court has sat down and said, "No, state law, you have no right to make decisions on your own...you must listen to federal law," what recourse could possibly remain for actual sanity to prevail? Is this landmark? Are we now completely unable to have state laws at odds with federal laws and have those state laws mean anything? Is it now the case that all reform must begin (and end) at the federal level?
And just to everyone who's been telling me that there are things that can be done, that reform can come, that we can all work together and make things happen...well, I'm just a little bit doubtful of that today. Look at the immense power that's just been wielded by a very small group of people, who, really, I had sort have expected to know better. At what point can we realistically take a look at the legal situation and this nation and say, "Well...there's no way we can change this." In short...where is there to turn after the Supreme Court?
Well, apropos to recent discussions on this here blog, a blow was dealt recently to the antiprohibitionist movement in the U.S. (such as it is). As many, if not all, of you are probably aware by now, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its ruling that the federal government does, indeed, have the right to prosecute drug offenders as it sees fit, regardless of a given state's laws. (San Jose Mercury News article; lots of others.) Specifically, medical marijuana laws (like those in California, etc.) will not shield users of medical marijuana from the federal criminal prohibition thereof. More specifically, the Court has said that Congress has the right to enforce the laws it has laid down, regardless of the law governing a specific state.
Now...you might imagine that I was initially fairly outraged/disappointed by this. Not, like, on the scale of the last Presidential election, but still...what a drag. Then I hit the brakes, and I started thinking about it. Did the Supreme Court just...do what it's supposed to do?
I admit I can't answer that. I don't actually know what the Supreme Court is supposed to do. Like in a mission-statement kind of way. I do know (or gather) that people don't like it much when they make their own laws. Fair enough...that's why we have a legislative branch. So they're there, to...what...interpret the law? Make decisions on the fine points and grey areas? Okay, that's cool. But this was...different. To me, anyway. It seems like a case of: state law says one thing (it's okay to use marijuana under certain medically-defined situations), federal law says another (it's not okay to use marijuana at all). So, unless I'm missing some intricacy of this case, it's a matter of deciding which law takes precedence...state or federal.
I see how this poses a problem. If not the Supreme Court, then to what entity could we possibly turn to make this decision? Immediately I feel that, purely on the basis of weighing state jurisdiction vs. federal, the Supreme Court has a vested interest in favoring federal jurisdiction. It occurs to me, though, as I think about that...is the really true? Does the Supreme Court (as an entity...I'm not talk about politics) really have any reason to trample on states's rights? Is their own power in any way eroded if state jurisdiction is strengthened? Again, I don't know. In any case, though, who else could possibly be asked to make this decision? And in a relatively unbiased way, even.
So, assume the Supreme Court is who we turn to for answers in cases like these. How do they decide? My first assumption is that they interpret the Constitution and make a decision based on that. So what is it in the Constitution that gives Congress precedence in this situation (specifically, a situation in which state law is governing a matter which does not involve federal interests, like foreign policy or interstate commerce).
So there's that. The reason I got milder in my reaction to the Supreme Court decision is because I figured...hey, I guess that's just what they do, maybe? Or is this unusual...or rather, is this actually a big thing, slapping down state law like this in favor of federal? What bothers me about all this is not the decision...maybe that decision was made long ago. What bothers me is that it was even a question.
So you're the federal government. You've made this law, and in it you say, "For the good of our people, I decree it a crime to engage in such-and-such behavior." Now your buddy (?), state government, makes a law that says, "For the good of our people, I decree it not a crime to engage in such-and-such behavior, under the supervision of a licensed medical professional. In cases not covered by this law, we defer to federal government."
I ask you, and not rhetorically, what possible motivation does the federal government have for stepping on state government's toes? Clearly said state has made a decision it feels is in its best interests. And in the case of this specific issue, when the only motivation, it seems, for prohibition is for people's own good, the state has found a way in which the people's good can be better served by breaking this prohibition. Where's the issue? Are we really that far gone, that marijuana (and I see no reason not to be specific...it is a medical marijuana law that's been stepped on) is so inherently evil that the federal government's blanket prohibition on it must be enforced, regardless of any other legislation? How does anyone benefit from federal agents ignoring state law and busting medical marijuana users? I again remind the audience that, in the case of marijuana grown and provided by local collectives (as in the case of medical marijuana in California, for example), there is no issue of foreigh policy, foreign trade, or interstate commerce to be addressed. How is this the federal government's jurisdiction at all?
So...while I'm at it...what motivation would the Supreme Court have for keeping it thus? Is that in the interests of justice? Of law? But I digress.
So it's clear that there's a lot I don't understand about this situation; if anyone's got any kind of answers, I'm all ears. But here's really where I'm headed...
What now? Now that the Supreme Court has sat down and said, "No, state law, you have no right to make decisions on your own...you must listen to federal law," what recourse could possibly remain for actual sanity to prevail? Is this landmark? Are we now completely unable to have state laws at odds with federal laws and have those state laws mean anything? Is it now the case that all reform must begin (and end) at the federal level?
And just to everyone who's been telling me that there are things that can be done, that reform can come, that we can all work together and make things happen...well, I'm just a little bit doubtful of that today. Look at the immense power that's just been wielded by a very small group of people, who, really, I had sort have expected to know better. At what point can we realistically take a look at the legal situation and this nation and say, "Well...there's no way we can change this." In short...where is there to turn after the Supreme Court?
