CDZ Will 37 States Change Federal Law?

[DarkFury]

The problem is, an Article V convention doesn't negate the requirement for ratification. Whatever you come up with has to garner an enormous amount of public support or it fails.

With pot, it's like JoMama said, it doesn't need a constitutional amendment, it simply needs to be enacted into law by congress. It could probably be effectively decriminalized through DEA by executive order.

I've felt like for a while, this is the best way to go about it, kill the federal drug classification and decriminalize it. With all the states now having pot statutes on the books and up and running, I expect to see a case come before SCOTUS soon. You simply cannot prosecute me for a felony in Alabama when my action is perfectly legal in Colorado. This is what "equal protection under the law" is all about. Sooner or later, someone will bring the case and the SCOTUS could rule federal marijuana laws unconstitutional.

I think you are wrong about this Boss. Equal protection is not about laws being the same in each state but rather about people being treated the same and not having laws apply differently based on a particular characteristic of a person. Even then there are exceptions, as not all characteristics are protected; a felon may be arrested for owning a firearm, for example, where a non felon is not.

There are certainly laws which apply only in certain states and not others. Age of consent laws differ from state to state as an example. It may be perfectly legal to have sexual relations in one state that would lead to criminal charges in another.

Now, if medical marijuana laws only applied to, say, people of Iranian descent, that would fall under equal protection.

State to state, you can have differences in the law. The issue here is federal statute. You can't apply a federal statute to members of one state while excusing members of another state. What you are presenting with the Iranian is basic discrimination based on national origin.

So again to clarify, "equal protection" isn't to make laws the same in all states, it is to ensure uniform application of federal law across the several states.

I am willing to bet that there is a federal 'solution' to this before it even gets through the courts. It is high time that they punted this back to the states where it belongs anyway.

Precisely, and as I said before, with the precedents Obama is setting with regards to executive branch powers and executive orders, the federal decriminalization of pot is simply a matter of signing a document.

Those 'precedents' are incorrect though. In order to actually address this there needs to be a law passed the proper way through congress.

NOT if they re-list or remove it from the FDA list.

 

[FA_Q2]

I think you are wrong about this Boss. Equal protection is not about laws being the same in each state but rather about people being treated the same and not having laws apply differently based on a particular characteristic of a person. Even then there are exceptions, as not all characteristics are protected; a felon may be arrested for owning a firearm, for example, where a non felon is not.

There are certainly laws which apply only in certain states and not others. Age of consent laws differ from state to state as an example. It may be perfectly legal to have sexual relations in one state that would lead to criminal charges in another.

Now, if medical marijuana laws only applied to, say, people of Iranian descent, that would fall under equal protection.

State to state, you can have differences in the law. The issue here is federal statute. You can't apply a federal statute to members of one state while excusing members of another state. What you are presenting with the Iranian is basic discrimination based on national origin.

So again to clarify, "equal protection" isn't to make laws the same in all states, it is to ensure uniform application of federal law across the several states.

I am willing to bet that there is a federal 'solution' to this before it even gets through the courts. It is high time that they punted this back to the states where it belongs anyway.

Precisely, and as I said before, with the precedents Obama is setting with regards to executive branch powers and executive orders, the federal decriminalization of pot is simply a matter of signing a document.

Those 'precedents' are incorrect though. In order to actually address this there needs to be a law passed the proper way through congress.

NOT if they re-list or remove it from the FDA list.

Interesting.

After looking into this more it looks as though you are correct. I am surprised such has not already happened.

 

[Boss]

The problem is, an Article V convention doesn't negate the requirement for ratification. Whatever you come up with has to garner an enormous amount of public support or it fails.

With pot, it's like JoMama said, it doesn't need a constitutional amendment, it simply needs to be enacted into law by congress. It could probably be effectively decriminalized through DEA by executive order.

I've felt like for a while, this is the best way to go about it, kill the federal drug classification and decriminalize it. With all the states now having pot statutes on the books and up and running, I expect to see a case come before SCOTUS soon. You simply cannot prosecute me for a felony in Alabama when my action is perfectly legal in Colorado. This is what "equal protection under the law" is all about. Sooner or later, someone will bring the case and the SCOTUS could rule federal marijuana laws unconstitutional.

I think you are wrong about this Boss. Equal protection is not about laws being the same in each state but rather about people being treated the same and not having laws apply differently based on a particular characteristic of a person. Even then there are exceptions, as not all characteristics are protected; a felon may be arrested for owning a firearm, for example, where a non felon is not.

There are certainly laws which apply only in certain states and not others. Age of consent laws differ from state to state as an example. It may be perfectly legal to have sexual relations in one state that would lead to criminal charges in another.

Now, if medical marijuana laws only applied to, say, people of Iranian descent, that would fall under equal protection.

State to state, you can have differences in the law. The issue here is federal statute. You can't apply a federal statute to members of one state while excusing members of another state. What you are presenting with the Iranian is basic discrimination based on national origin.

So again to clarify, "equal protection" isn't to make laws the same in all states, it is to ensure uniform application of federal law across the several states.

I am willing to bet that there is a federal 'solution' to this before it even gets through the courts. It is high time that they punted this back to the states where it belongs anyway.

Precisely, and as I said before, with the precedents Obama is setting with regards to executive branch powers and executive orders, the federal decriminalization of pot is simply a matter of signing a document.

Those 'precedents' are incorrect though. In order to actually address this there needs to be a law passed the proper way through congress.

Not necessarily. I am not saying you are wrong, you may be right. However, a lot has to do with how pot got to be a Schedule A narcotic. If this was done through executive order as part of Nixon's Drug War, nothing need be passed in Congress to undo that.

And even IF there was a law passed to make pot a Schedule A, the justice department can simply choose not to enforce the law, like they did with DOMA. Essentially, this is what is happening currently in Colorado and Washington. It's still a felony, the Feds just aren't prosecuting it.

 

[Roadrunner]

I have read when and if the 37 state mark is hit the feds are FORCED to change federal law.

This is not true. It sounds like someone has confused the criteria for ratification of constitutional amendments. (ERA was an amendment attempt) At this time, there is no med-pot amendment being considered.

Now, that said, with the number of states growing where marijuana is legal, it opens the door for challenges to federal law under the "equal protection" clause. SCOTUS could rule federal marijuana laws unconstitutional, leaving it a matter to be determined by the states.

It is for this reason I believe federal marijuana laws will be reformed and pot will become decriminalized, probably within the next decade.

Okay I stand corrected. As I read it and I should re-find that link once 37 states adopt it the feds are forced to deal with it on a national level.

But as stated I will re-check.

That is the process for proposed amendments.

Nothing automatically kicks in as you suggest.

 

[Roadrunner]

When marijuana is made legal it will be taxed at every stage of growth and distribution. Licenses will be required and fees will be charged.

And they'll call that freedom.

I ain't buying no license or paying no taxes for something I have been doing for 50 fuckin' years!!!

Put THAT in you pipe and smoke it!!!!

 

[Boss]

Federal law does allow states to be more restrictive in some cases. A convicted felon who has served his time may not vote in Arizona but in Nevada he can. Certain states depending on the conviction even allow limited gun rights to return. {hunting}

This is because the Constitution has been interpreted to allow restriction of rights for convicted felons. The state, however, is not compelled to restrict their rights and some don't restrict them as much as others. Perfectly constitutional under equal protection.

Again, the issue here is not state laws, it's federal law. The states can still limit or restrict sale and possession of marijuana. What you cannot have is a federal statute being applied to citizens in one state and not being applied to citizens of another. If it's against the Federal law in Alabama, it should also be against Federal law in Colorado, right?

 

[Roadrunner]

Federal law does allow states to be more restrictive in some cases. A convicted felon who has served his time may not vote in Arizona but in Nevada he can. Certain states depending on the conviction even allow limited gun rights to return. {hunting}

This is because the Constitution has been interpreted to allow restriction of rights for convicted felons. The state, however, is not compelled to restrict their rights and some don't restrict them as much as others. Perfectly constitutional under equal protection.

Again, the issue here is not state laws, it's federal law. The states can still limit or restrict sale and possession of marijuana. What you cannot have is a federal statute being applied to citizens in one state and not being applied to citizens of another. If it's against the Federal law in Alabama, it should also be against Federal law in Colorado, right?

Apparently the law is what Obama/Holder choose to enforce.

 

[FA_Q2]

When marijuana is made legal it will be taxed at every stage of growth and distribution. Licenses will be required and fees will be charged.

And they'll call that freedom.

I ain't buying no license or paying no taxes for something I have been doing for 50 fuckin' years!!!

Put THAT in you pipe and smoke it!!!!

thats nice. Does not mean it will be any less illegal.