Do liberals practice and use nullification when they legalize marijuana on the state level?

[The2ndAmendment]

Every time the word "nullification" is use by a conservative the RACE TRAIN comes plowing through the thread

Yet, they (liberals) conveniently ignore that they themselves are the largest proponents and users of nullification in the 21st Century with their stance against federal marijuana laws.

What is C_Clayton_Jones stance on nullifying federal marijuana laws at the state level, as he is one of the most ardent liberals assailants of nullification on USMB?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Whoever wrote this wikipedia article explained it pretty well:

Some states have legalized acts that are prohibited by federal law. For example, Colorado and Washington legalized recreational marijuana use under state law in 2012. This should be distinguished from nullification. Whether an act is legal under state law does not affect the legality of that act under federal law. An act may be legal under state law, and at the same time illegal under federal law. A state that legalizes an act under state law, but does not declare invalid federal law regarding that act, is not engaging in nullification. The federal law making that act illegal still is valid and may be enforced by the federal government. Thus, the states that have legalized marijuana use have not attempted to declare that federal marijuana laws are invalid or unenforceable. Rather, federal marijuana laws still are valid and enforceable, even in states that have made marijuana legal under state law. This is not a use of nullification because the states are not challenging the constitutionality of federal law, and they are not attempting to prevent enforcement of federal law within the state. Thus, legalization of marijuana is not an act of nullification.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

So, you're telling me if the feds got active in blue states arresting people for marijuana use, that liberals wouldn't be mad?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So, you're telling me if the feds got active in blue states arresting people for marijuana use, that liberals wouldn't be mad?

They do "get active" in blue states, and do arrest people for marijuana use.

And yes, liberals are mad about it.

None of that signifies "nullification", though. We haven't deluded ourselves into thinking that state legalization can override federal prohibition.

 

[Syriusly]

So, you're telling me if the feds got active in blue states arresting people for marijuana use, that liberals wouldn't be mad?

They do "get active" in blue states, and do arrest people for marijuana use.

And yes, liberals are mad about it.

None of that signifies "nullification", though. We haven't deluded ourselves into thinking that state legalization can override federal prohibition.

Yes and yes.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

So, you're telling me if the feds got active in blue states arresting people for marijuana use, that liberals wouldn't be mad?

They do "get active" in blue states, and do arrest people for marijuana use.

And yes, liberals are mad about it.

None of that signifies "nullification", though. We haven't deluded ourselves into thinking that state legalization can override federal prohibition.

Ah, so liberals are unhappy slaves then. Thanks.

You can override federal prohibition, when the LEO's of California arrest the invaders from the federal government that are humiliating it's sovereignty. The Constitution was not intended to be a slave-pact to the federal government.

 

[g5000]

Every time the word "nullification" is use by a conservative the RACE TRAIN comes plowing through the thread

The only nullification topics I have seen are ones about gun control. There is no "race train" involved.

 

[bendog]

having lost the debate over the definition of nullification (quite badly I add) you resort to inventing fantasy factual hypotheticals. Never let facts stand in the way of a good rant.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So, you're telling me if the feds got active in blue states arresting people for marijuana use, that liberals wouldn't be mad?

They do "get active" in blue states, and do arrest people for marijuana use.

And yes, liberals are mad about it.

None of that signifies "nullification", though. We haven't deluded ourselves into thinking that state legalization can override federal prohibition.

Ah, so liberals are unhappy slaves then. Thanks.

You can override federal prohibition, when the LEO's of California arrest the invaders from the federal government that are humiliating it's sovereignty. The Constitution was not intended to be a slave-pact to the federal government.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm pretty damn happy.

Happier than you seem to be, from your posts on this board.

 

[g5000]

Here we see an example of a state law which specifically states it is nullifying federal law:

Two types of bills are the primary vehicles for the movement, both based on model legislation introduced in statehouses from Tallahassee to Juneau.

The first type holds that federal laws do not apply to firearms manufactured and sold within a given state, relying on the Constitution’s interstate commerce clause. It says Congress can regulate trade between states, but says nothing about trade within states.

Under Utah law, for example, guns made, purchased and used in the state are exempt from federal laws.

In states a legislative rush to nullify federal gun laws - The Washington Post

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

Whoever wrote this wikipedia article explained it pretty well:

Some states have legalized acts that are prohibited by federal law. For example, Colorado and Washington legalized recreational marijuana use under state law in 2012. This should be distinguished from nullification. Whether an act is legal under state law does not affect the legality of that act under federal law. An act may be legal under state law, and at the same time illegal under federal law. A state that legalizes an act under state law, but does not declare invalid federal law regarding that act, is not engaging in nullification. The federal law making that act illegal still is valid and may be enforced by the federal government. Thus, the states that have legalized marijuana use have not attempted to declare that federal marijuana laws are invalid or unenforceable. Rather, federal marijuana laws still are valid and enforceable, even in states that have made marijuana legal under state law. This is not a use of nullification because the states are not challenging the constitutionality of federal law, and they are not attempting to prevent enforcement of federal law within the state. Thus, legalization of marijuana is not an act of nullification.

Federal marijuana laws are proving pretty malleable these days. Even after Colorado passed marijuana legalization, the federal government got hardheaded and started making Colorado vets take urine tests if they had VA prescriptions for Class 4 opiate-based pain medications. If they tested positive for THC, the VA would cut off their pain medication. I don't know how many people they killed or put through unnecessary agony, but that ruling ended abruptly last May when Colorado VA districts announced that the federal government would no longer, in any way, persecute Colorado veterans for self-medicating with marijuana. I think national marijuana legalization is just a matter of time. The main social fallout from legalization that I can conjure, is that state taxing bureaucracies are making dump trucks full of money, and the really big growers are greasing a lot of political palms. That was to be expected I suppose.

 

[Moonglow]

I personally nullified federal law on MJ in 1977...

 

[Moonglow]

Whoever wrote this wikipedia article explained it pretty well:

Some states have legalized acts that are prohibited by federal law. For example, Colorado and Washington legalized recreational marijuana use under state law in 2012. This should be distinguished from nullification. Whether an act is legal under state law does not affect the legality of that act under federal law. An act may be legal under state law, and at the same time illegal under federal law. A state that legalizes an act under state law, but does not declare invalid federal law regarding that act, is not engaging in nullification. The federal law making that act illegal still is valid and may be enforced by the federal government. Thus, the states that have legalized marijuana use have not attempted to declare that federal marijuana laws are invalid or unenforceable. Rather, federal marijuana laws still are valid and enforceable, even in states that have made marijuana legal under state law. This is not a use of nullification because the states are not challenging the constitutionality of federal law, and they are not attempting to prevent enforcement of federal law within the state. Thus, legalization of marijuana is not an act of nullification.

Federal marijuana laws are proving pretty malleable these days. Even after Colorado passed marijuana legalization, the federal government got hardheaded and started making Colorado vets take urine tests if they had VA prescriptions for Class 4 opiate-based pain medications. If they tested positive for THC, the VA would cut off their pain medication. I don't know how many people they killed or put through unnecessary agony, but that ruling ended abruptly last May when Colorado VA districts announced that the federal government would no longer, in any way, persecute Colorado veterans for self-medicating with marijuana. I think national marijuana legalization is just a matter of time. The main social fallout from legalization that I can conjure, is that state taxing bureaucracies are making dump trucks full of money, and the really big growers are greasing a lot of political palms. That was to be expected I suppose.[/QUOT]

..

They drug test vets in Fayetteville, Ar. for pot and cut them off still...

 

[Dogmaphobe]

It's a slippery slope, I tell ya.

One day they're legalizing the evil weed, and the next thing you know, we'll have mandatory injection of heroin into the fetuses of God fearing Christians!

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Whoever wrote this wikipedia article explained it pretty well:

Some states have legalized acts that are prohibited by federal law. For example, Colorado and Washington legalized recreational marijuana use under state law in 2012. This should be distinguished from nullification. Whether an act is legal under state law does not affect the legality of that act under federal law. An act may be legal under state law, and at the same time illegal under federal law. A state that legalizes an act under state law, but does not declare invalid federal law regarding that act, is not engaging in nullification. The federal law making that act illegal still is valid and may be enforced by the federal government. Thus, the states that have legalized marijuana use have not attempted to declare that federal marijuana laws are invalid or unenforceable. Rather, federal marijuana laws still are valid and enforceable, even in states that have made marijuana legal under state law. This is not a use of nullification because the states are not challenging the constitutionality of federal law, and they are not attempting to prevent enforcement of federal law within the state. Thus, legalization of marijuana is not an act of nullification.

Similar is seen with age of consent laws. Some states due to their Romeo and Juliet close-in-age excemptions allow teens to have sex under the federal age of 16. 14yo and a 19yo in some states.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Every time the word "nullification" is use by a conservative the RACE TRAIN comes plowing through the thread

Yet, they (liberals) conveniently ignore that they themselves are the largest proponents and users of nullification in the 21st Century with their stance against federal marijuana laws.

What is C_Clayton_Jones stance on nullifying federal marijuana laws at the state level, as he is one of the most ardent liberals assailants of nullification on USMB?

No, they are not. There is no right of nullification. The administration is choosing to let these state legalizations stand; it is compelled by law to do so.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

You run an entire circus to obfuscate what you're doing, but if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck --- it's a duck. "A rose by any other name is still a rose."

You are practicing nullification.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You run an entire circus to obfuscate what you're doing, but if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck --- it's a duck. "A rose by any other name is still a rose."

You are practicing nullification.

Wrong.

California Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Can Be Targeted By Feds Appeals Court Rules NBC Bay Area