The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Conlaw question about WEED LEGALIZATION
Poast new message in this thread
Date: August 22nd, 2010 12:51 PM Author: appetizing white resort windowlicker I got into a discussion with shitlaw "steve" and blondie last night about the proposition legalizing weed in CA.
they were absolutely convinced that the courts will throw out the prop because of the conflict with federal law and no medical exemption for its citizens, blah blah.
I dont see the conflict with federal law - obviously it stays illegal federally but since when does pre emption force a state to criminalize anything.
I can see any laws trying to regulate or tax weed being pre empted, but to the extent the proposition itself just removes the crime from the books, I dont understand how the federal government can do anything about it unless it ties funding after the fact. |
 |
Date: August 22nd, 2010 12:56 PM Author: sexy rusted circlehead (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1402221&forum_id=2#15851234) |
|
Date: August 22nd, 2010 12:58 PM Author: appetizing white resort windowlicker 1 - ty.
2 - no.
yeah shitlaw "steve" and blondie were being very adamant about it, but I think they were just being stubborn fuckers.
lets say the prop says "weed shall be decriminalized and the state shall adopt regulations control and tax weed"
would pre emptions throw out the whole prop or just the part that conflicts with fed law? |
|
Date: August 22nd, 2010 1:01 PM Author: curious milky private investor Hmm, actually kind of interesting. I don't think there's a preemption issue with just not criminalizing something. No reason every federal crime should also be a state crime. But if the state actually had a regulatory and tax scheme on something that was illegal federally maybe that would be a preemption issue? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1402221&forum_id=2#15851285) |
|
Date: August 22nd, 2010 1:03 PM Author: appetizing white resort windowlicker it think it would be preempted - but I dont know if they would carve out part of the prop.
i do know the prop doesnt have the whole regulatory scheme set up in it. |
|
Date: August 22nd, 2010 1:03 PM Author: sexy rusted circlehead (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1402221&forum_id=2#15851305) |
|
Date: August 22nd, 2010 1:02 PM Author: sexy rusted circlehead (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1402221&forum_id=2#15851293) |
|
Date: August 22nd, 2010 2:33 PM Author: contagious medicated double fault nursing home raich and the wheat case mean it can don't they? I think they're both bullshit, but the takeaway is that things don't actually have to have anything to do with commerce (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1402221&forum_id=2#15852000) |
|
Date: August 22nd, 2010 12:56 PM Author: Submissive quadroon Did you actually attend law school? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1402221&forum_id=2#15851242) |
|
Date: August 22nd, 2010 1:01 PM Author: appetizing white resort windowlicker yes, I got an A in conlaw too. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1402221&forum_id=2#15851283) |
|
Date: August 22nd, 2010 1:45 PM Author: Dashing faggot firefighter "since when does pre emption force a state to criminalize anything."
Never.
The.
End. |
|
Date: August 22nd, 2010 1:46 PM Author: appetizing white resort windowlicker what if the prop says "it shall be legal for a person to possess up to 1 oz of pot" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1402221&forum_id=2#15851648) |
|
Date: August 28th, 2010 3:40 AM Author: Mentally impaired lay useless brakes then it is legal as far as CA is concerned. as for the feds, different story. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1402221&forum_id=2#15902432) |
Date: August 22nd, 2010 12:55 PM Author: curious milky private investor Did you not actually study preemption doctrine in conlaw? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1402221&forum_id=2#15851230) |
|
Date: August 22nd, 2010 12:56 PM Author: sexy rusted circlehead (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1402221&forum_id=2#15851239) |
|
Date: August 22nd, 2010 12:58 PM Author: curious milky private investor Actually to be fair I think I might be wrong. I was thinking field preemption, but since there's already lots of state drug law in existence I don't think the federal government could use that argument. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1402221&forum_id=2#15851258) |
|
Date: August 22nd, 2010 1:00 PM Author: sexy rusted circlehead (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1402221&forum_id=2#15851275) |
|
Date: August 22nd, 2010 12:56 PM Author: appetizing white resort windowlicker no also it was 5 years ago and you dont use it much in practice. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1402221&forum_id=2#15851240) |
|
Date: August 22nd, 2010 12:57 PM Author: curious milky private investor Also I think part of the problem is that Federal law enforcement would do shit anyway. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1402221&forum_id=2#15851245) |
|
Date: August 22nd, 2010 12:59 PM Author: appetizing white resort windowlicker what? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1402221&forum_id=2#15851266) |
|
Date: August 22nd, 2010 1:00 PM Author: curious milky private investor There are federal drug laws. Federal law enforcement could still enforce them in California. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1402221&forum_id=2#15851270) |
|
Date: August 22nd, 2010 1:00 PM Author: appetizing white resort windowlicker of course, but they wont. not enough manpower. they arent enforcing the laws now against medical weed. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1402221&forum_id=2#15851276) |
|
Date: August 22nd, 2010 1:02 PM Author: curious milky private investor Perhaps. But if the federal government wanted to send a strong message to states about it they could mount a crackdown. Probably won't happen under Obama but maybe under a Republican. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1402221&forum_id=2#15851290) |
|
Date: August 22nd, 2010 1:03 PM Author: appetizing white resort windowlicker honestly I dont think there are enough federal agents. I wouldn't worry about it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1402221&forum_id=2#15851304) |
|
Date: August 22nd, 2010 5:19 PM Author: emerald charismatic pistol uhh? i believe 1/3+ of federally prosecuted narcotics crimes deal w/ weed (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1402221&forum_id=2#15853195) |
|
Date: August 28th, 2010 3:42 AM Author: Mentally impaired lay useless brakes yeah, but that's against big time distributors, not medical marijuana. there is a difference. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1402221&forum_id=2#15902443) |
|
Date: August 22nd, 2010 12:59 PM Author: gold cocky foreskin you are correct. feds can still enforce their criminal statute, but the state is under no obligation to do so (or to have concurrent criminal statutes). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1402221&forum_id=2#15851261) |
|
Date: August 22nd, 2010 1:00 PM Author: appetizing white resort windowlicker and the fed cant possibly enforce its laws against 5 million people growing 2 plants in their back yards. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1402221&forum_id=2#15851273) |
|
Date: August 22nd, 2010 1:02 PM Author: gold cocky foreskin yeah. although if they did do some random busts, it would probably scare a lot of people off who would otherwise grow. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1402221&forum_id=2#15851292) |
|
Date: August 22nd, 2010 1:06 PM Author: sienna gaming laptop idea he suggested they already did that in the past, it didnt do shit (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1402221&forum_id=2#15851324) |
|
Date: August 22nd, 2010 1:03 PM Author: curious milky private investor That's true, but they could pretty easily shut down a bunch of dispensaries to send a message. Not much to do about the home growing though probably. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1402221&forum_id=2#15851298) |
|
Date: August 28th, 2010 4:00 AM Author: Mentally impaired lay useless brakes but they're not doing that anymore (at least for now) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1402221&forum_id=2#15902509) |
|
Date: August 22nd, 2010 1:05 PM Author: sienna gaming laptop idea he suggested cr, local cops do the vast majority of enforcement. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1402221&forum_id=2#15851315) |
|
Date: August 22nd, 2010 1:51 PM Author: Spectacular filthpig crackhouse uh, colorado has had weed legalized for a couple yrs now with no fed interference at all. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1402221&forum_id=2#15851692) |
|
Date: August 22nd, 2010 1:52 PM Author: appetizing white resort windowlicker legalized or decriminalized? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1402221&forum_id=2#15851700) |
|
Date: August 22nd, 2010 1:54 PM Author: Spectacular filthpig crackhouse legalized for medical use. legal to grow it in your house for medical purposes with a state tax permit which anyone can get. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1402221&forum_id=2#15851725) |
|
Date: August 22nd, 2010 5:09 PM Author: gold cocky foreskin that's basically what cali already has (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1402221&forum_id=2#15853115) |
|
Date: August 22nd, 2010 4:01 PM Author: fragrant mustard corner hairy legs Re would just part of weed isn't criminalized and lets tax it be preempted.
I think that they'd have to just say, you can't tax it, I don't see how the fed gov could do anything else. If Cali doesn't write the criminal statue for it what is a court going to do, write its own? what would the penalties be? It's just logistically impossible for a federal court to create a state crime. |
|
Date: August 22nd, 2010 4:36 PM Author: appetizing white resort windowlicker the text of prop 19 says that it is legal to possess an ounce of weed. Not sure if that is throwing out existing state law or if that is an affirmative act that can be preempted. I would think the former. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1402221&forum_id=2#15852839) |
|
Date: August 22nd, 2010 4:44 PM Author: hairraiser pozpig i believe it is left up to counties whether to legalize/tax. I don't see how the law would be different than prop215/med pot, which wasn't thrown out. The DEA is still busting med marijuana dispensaries though (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1402221&forum_id=2#15852888) |
|
Date: August 22nd, 2010 4:48 PM Author: appetizing white resort windowlicker shitlaw "steve" and blondie said that there is a medical exemption in the 10th amendment or something which allows a state to care for the wellbeing of its citizens. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1402221&forum_id=2#15852910) |
|
Date: August 22nd, 2010 4:54 PM Author: hairraiser pozpig well i suppose i could see scalia making that shit up in gonzales v raich, but if that were the case, the DEA shouldn't be doing what it has been doing.
I think the taxation part is what could cause the courts to throw it out (interfering with federal regulations against sale etc). |
|
Date: August 22nd, 2010 4:59 PM Author: appetizing white resort windowlicker but there are no taxation provisions currently in place, that's up to cities and counties. I'm just wondering if there is any claim for a federal case to throw out the prop itself which says "possession of an ounce is legal and up to 10 plants if you are 21" "also cities may tax" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1402221&forum_id=2#15853000) |
|
Date: August 22nd, 2010 5:14 PM Author: hairraiser pozpig thats a fair point. And that would bring me back to the original prop 215. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
The courts did not throw it out, but the feds don't need to respect it all that much. We'll probably be in the same limbo when this passes.
|
|
Date: August 22nd, 2010 5:24 PM Author: appetizing white resort windowlicker no one cares if the feds dont respect it because they cant enforce. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1402221&forum_id=2#15853243) |
|
Date: August 22nd, 2010 5:04 PM Author: Stimulating sinister half-breed blondie has long been one of the dumbest posters in law threads and steve has recently taken the top spot in that category so don't listen to them
the basic outline of the issue is very simple
california merely striking or affirming that it is not against state criminal law to possess a certain amount of weed or in certain circumstances or anything would not be preempted. very clear, very certain, even in a muddy topic, from law and even just basic logic. it has nothing to do with the fucking 10th amendment or whatever stupid shit
taxing weed sales should that become state law might hypothetically be preempted given how messy the doctrine is, it would be a sufficiently new issue in a sufficiently unclear area that nobody should be able to make a particularly good guess on how it would come out
thats almost all there is to say about it |
|
Date: August 22nd, 2010 5:11 PM Author: appetizing white resort windowlicker that's what I though. shitlaw "steve" is not actually steve. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1402221&forum_id=2#15853135) |
|
Date: August 22nd, 2010 5:14 PM Author: Stimulating sinister half-breed oh is he that fat guy she used to post pictures of (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1402221&forum_id=2#15853159) |
|
Date: August 22nd, 2010 5:15 PM Author: hairraiser pozpig steve is blondies hubby? Did you see him at the meetup? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1402221&forum_id=2#15853165) |
|
Date: August 22nd, 2010 5:15 PM Author: appetizing white resort windowlicker no it's not actually steve. I just gave the husban the same nickname. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1402221&forum_id=2#15853169) |
|
Date: August 22nd, 2010 5:17 PM Author: Fiercely-loyal weed whacker stock car Why would it be illegal to tax drugs? Some states already tax illegal drugs (granted the drugs are illegal under state law as well). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1402221&forum_id=2#15853178) |
|
Date: August 22nd, 2010 5:30 PM Author: hairraiser pozpig botox seeped into blondielaw's brain (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1402221&forum_id=2#15853299) |
|
Date: August 22nd, 2010 5:38 PM Author: appetizing white resort windowlicker she's actually very nice and pretty hot. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1402221&forum_id=2#15853343) |
|
Date: August 22nd, 2010 6:07 PM Author: hairraiser pozpig her body is good. face is meh. nice != smart
admire her workout ethic, though. |
|
Date: August 27th, 2010 9:42 PM Author: offensive police squad NEVER FORGET!!!
Date: August 22nd, 2010 12:51 PM Author: NicoBlue's 4yr old son starting preschool in HELL (earl)
I got into a discussion with shitlaw "steve" and blondie last night about the proposition legalizing weed in CA.
they were absolutely convinced that the courts will throw out the prop because of the conflict with federal law and no medical exemption for its citizens, blah blah.
I dont see the conflict with federal law - obviously it stays illegal federally but since when does pre emption force a state to criminalize anything.
I can see any laws trying to regulate or tax weed being pre empted, but to the extent the proposition itself just removes the crime from the books, I dont understand how the federal government can do anything about it unless it ties funding after the fact.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1402221&forum_id=2#15851199)
|
|
Date: August 27th, 2010 9:42 PM Author: mind-boggling drunken space queen of the night (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1402221&forum_id=2#15899978) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2010 9:43 PM Author: appetizing white resort windowlicker yeah I was pretty assholish ITT. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1402221&forum_id=2#15899984) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2010 11:29 PM Author: hairraiser pozpig i respectfully disagree (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1402221&forum_id=2#15900751) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2010 11:32 PM Author: appetizing white resort windowlicker nah man. I came in this thread to bash those dudes because i am too much of a chicken shit to argue about it during an already awkward dinner. it has nothing to do with having a genuine question about the issue. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1402221&forum_id=2#15900765) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2010 11:30 PM Author: vivacious burgundy cruise ship coffee pot stop reverse whiteknighting urself bro (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1402221&forum_id=2#15900755) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2010 11:32 PM Author: appetizing white resort windowlicker you weren't there to carry me dood :( (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1402221&forum_id=2#15900766) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2010 11:44 PM Author: adulterous godawful house lettuce Raich. /thread
(It's 100% on point. If POTUS directs DOJ etc. not to enforce federal drug laws, that's another story. But again: Raich.) |
|
Date: August 28th, 2010 3:49 AM Author: Mewling university wait how the fuck does that answer the preemption argument? No one is questioning the fed's power to criminalize marijuana use. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1402221&forum_id=2#15902472) |
|
Date: August 28th, 2010 3:54 AM Author: Mentally impaired lay useless brakes posted without seeing your comment. You are right, this dude tried to be cool and sound smart, but failed miserably.
raich is NOT 100% on point, at all. |
|
Date: August 28th, 2010 4:11 AM Author: Mewling university ty, i thought I was taking crazy pills for a moment (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1402221&forum_id=2#15902532) |
|
Date: August 28th, 2010 3:53 AM Author: Mentally impaired lay useless brakes problem is, that doesn't address the issue at all. Raich stands for the proposition that the feds can still criminalize weed even if CA says it shouldn't be a crime.
However, Raich does not force CA to criminalize weed or enforce the federal law. What some posters have a hard time conceptualizing is how two different governments can have disparate laws re: marijuana. Well, they can, and it has nothing to do with preemption.
Just because the feds criminalize weed, doesn't mean CA has to. End thread. |
|
Date: August 28th, 2010 3:54 AM Author: exhilarant school Hi shitlaw steve! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1402221&forum_id=2#15902487) |
|
Date: August 28th, 2010 3:55 AM Author: Mentally impaired lay useless brakes ??? are you really that lost? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1402221&forum_id=2#15902492) |