Nebraska and OK sue Colorado

[Racket_Man]

because Colorado legalized recreational Pot claiming said legalization is unconstitutional.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/1...n_6350162.html

HMMMMM as one commenter (and MY first thought was) said

Hasn't the conservatives in states such as Oklahoma and Nebraska argued for State's Rights? You guys can not have it both ways.

Thoughts????

[Rageaholic]

My thoughts are the same. I guess there's concern that because they border, it will make it easier to smuggle to neighboring states, but that sounds like a flimsy reason at best.

[HYHYBT]

Hasn't the conservatives in states such as Oklahoma and Nebraska argued for State's Rights?

But this is something they're AGAINST. That makes it totally different.

[Andara Bledin]

Considering that the latest spending bill to pass includes a prohibition on the enforcement of federal laws on dispensaries and citizens following state laws regarding marijuana, I'm not sure what they think they're going to get with this suit.

Not to mention that as of right now, roughly half of the population is in support of legalization, and that number continues to grow as the dire consequences predicted by opponents have continued to fail to happen despite more states decriminalizing it's use.

[Greenday]

Really what this might just be is an attempt to get an early ruling on the issue by the SCOTUS. If they waited until it was legalized in half the states, getting it banned would be a lot harder.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Yea, this ruling is a lot more loaded than kids getting high.

The reality is, no one has challenged the effective nullification of Federal statute that is now being practiced in multiple states. Regardless of how the populations of individual states feel, there has been no repeal on a federal level of these laws.

So honestly I don't care much about the case itself (as long as I don't have to smell it, I don't care what you do) but I do care about the implications. Article IV paragraph 2 or the Supremacy clause has historically been a big deal and it's one we've fought a war over and sent national guardsmen into states to enforce laws over.

So this really is the perfect case for states to attempt to get nullification power. Citizens will think "well my rights rah rah rah" and not think about their state or their locality being able to redictate what rights they have at the federal level. It's a weird "other" case of the Federal law being more restrictive than the state which isn't usually the norm.

[wolfie]

Legislators who were pushing for states rights on some issues in their home states suing another state when it chooses to follow the "states rights" path on an issue they disagree with? What the heck were they smoking? It's definitely something stronger than pot.

What I'd like to see is a "cage match" between the Supremacy Clause (federal law overrides state law) and the 10th Amendment (jurisdiction over issues not explicitly given to the Feds by the Constitution are reserved for the States and the People). Happened a bit before my time, but it's my understanding that at the time the Constitution was written drugs were unregulated (Laudanum, a.k.a. tincture of opium, was an over-the-counter item), and that the only laws surrounding C. Sativa were ones REQUIRING that people grow it (heck, the Navy needs hemp for ropes). If something is unregulated, then clearly there's no need to reserve jurisdiction over it for the Feds, so it would definitely be a "states rights" issue.

[s_stabeler]

Yes, but the Federal Government has several powers reserved to itself that it uses somewhat liberally to bypass the 10th amendment. The most common one is the Commerce Clause ( giving the federal Government the right to regulate interstate commerce) since it's been interpreted (by the courts) as allowing the regulation of anything that could possibly affect interstate commerce, even if a product doesn't cross state lines. In the case of illegal drugs, the fact they are imported into the US is enough.

oh, and even in the age of sail, there were alternatives to hemp for making ropes. (I've seen the place at the Royal Docklands in Chatham where they made the ropes. It was definitely wool, albeit in the UK, it was likely far more available than wool. It's still clear hemp was not mandatory, however)

and yeah, this is one case where I'm somewhat meh on the issue the law is over (I think tobacco and alcohol should be banned ( with an exception for mouthwash, since there, the alcohol is there for a reason other than getting drunk.Same for industrial uses, or sanitation.) too, but I'm not massively bothered.) but I DO have an issue with states being able to ignore the Federal Government- as we saw with he ACA, where states ignored rules on expanding medicare, as well as to set up state healthcare insurance exchanges. ( which is WHY there were such issues with the federal exchange- it wasn't supposed to exist, so was somewhat rushed.) This is what caused the original Articles of Confederation to need to be revised- states basically only paid attention to the national government when it was convenient.It's the entire REASON the Supremacy Clause was even added.