Thread: Question on States Rights/Federal Authority

I'm 100% for AZ's law. I wish Texas had the backbone to pass a similar law.
But this does raise a question I've been wondering about.
If the Feds step in and invalidate Arizona's law, citing "federal jurisdiction" or some other such hogwash, how could CA pass a law legalizing marijuana, since that's definitely directly in conflict with federal law ?

Good One?!?!?!

Originally Posted by eagleshadow

I'm 100% for AZ's law. I wish Texas had the backbone to pass a similar law.
But this does raise a question I've been wondering about.
If the Feds step in and invalidate Arizona's law, citing "federal jurisdiction" or some other such hogwash, how could CA pass a law legalizing marijuana, since that's definitely directly in conflict with federal law ?

The Constitution is clear that states have the right to control immigration into their state and have had since the day the US Constitution was ratified. In 1808 per the Constitution the federal government had the right to restrict immigration and charge $10 a head for it. The Constitution also requires the federal government to protect any state from an invasion. But the Constitution never empowered the federal government with the authority to permit immigration, increase it, grant it or amnesty it without the permission of the state legislatures affected by it.

As to drug laws, federal law can't pre-empt state law on products and sales until it crosses state lines under the commerce clause of the US Constitution. If California confines the growing and sales to within its boundaries, I don't believe the federal law can pre-empt it due to lack of jurisdiction and constitutional authority.

These aren't national security issues, these aren't public hazards, they aren't nuclear bombs, they aren't international contraband, so there's really no authority the feds actually have over California's intrastate marijuana market.

Another thing to remember is the state of Az. passed laws already passed by the federal government, they are in the "Immigration Nationality Act of 1986 and 1996" with the exception I beilieve of making it a felony to be in the state illegally( although Rep. Lamar Smith says Janet is crazy because it is a crime) ....but as for enforcement and aiding and abetting they are already fed. law, they just have not been enforced for the past 25 years or promises not kept when giving the last two amnesties.

Thanks for the clarification.
Re all the opposition to the Arizona bill, let all of 'em move to Mexico and protest from there: see how far they'd get and how much noise they'd make.
I have just been sick to death of this whole situation for years, watching it get increasingly worse.
I mean, what country do those who oppose this legislation support, if any ? It sure doesn't seem to be the US of A ! I guess, given their way, America would just annex Mexico and make it our 51 "state". Unfortunately, they want it exactly the other way around !
I realize that others have a right to oppose these laws, but I also wonder at times exactly what, if anything, the majority of them have done for this country ! Like serve in our armed forces, support our constitution, and even their own state constitutions ! Most of 'em are living off the "fat of the land" [the blood that so many shed to give them the life they have here & the simple fact that they have agendas much different than those intended by our founders].
Another "Hurrah !!!" for Gov Brewer and the state of AZ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Long live the United States of America, and may God bless our nation !!!

Your welcome "eagleshadow"

ut as for enforcement and aiding and abetting they are already fed. law, they just have not been enforced for the past 25 years or promises not kept when giving the last two amnesties.

Also, the 1996 federal law, I believe, clearly requires the states to provide assistance to the federal government in enforcing the law. That is, in my opinion, what Arizona's new law accomplishes.