Publicly speaking in defense of our rights

Citizen · Nov 13, 2012

Boomboy007 said:
Well, our recent ballot initiative that passed regarding the adult recreational use of marijuana is a perfect example of state law being less restrictive than federal law. While it may be against federal law, without state LEO to enforce it, the Feds are pretty much screwed. They just don't have the numbers of officers required to effectively enforce that law in one state, much less 5, 10, or 50.

Until they put a Viper (their word) squad on the interstate to interdict (their word for pretext) terrorists with random suspicionless searches.

And, you still have the border patrol setting up roadblocks up to 100 miles from the sea or an international border.

And, the coast guard bugging boaters.

You're right, they're gonna have a hard time; but its not going to be a cake walk for some of the rest of us.

LkWd_Don · Nov 13, 2012

EMNofSeattle said:
Well his spiel also involved him saying that state law cannot be less restrictive then federal, only more restrictive, and that cities could be more restrictive then state law but not less.

Which is a vast (and inaccurate) simplification of how it actually works, well at least to the best my knowledge. the way I understand it, State constitutional protections can be more restrictive on government then the federal constitution at least involving how that states officers conduct themselves. for instance the saga of Sitz v. Michigan showed that the federal courts can rule that an action doesn't violate the federal constitution, but when remanded a state court can still rule their state constitution is more protective. and with statutory law Printz v. US and New York v. US the supreme court ruled that the federal government cannot mandate state and local officials to enforce federal law. so I presume state law can be less restrictive but with the understanding adherence to state law is not a defense in federal court.

This was the exact argument I made to counter that claim.

Do you believe I was wrong in any of that?

For those powers given (said better, are specifically reserved) to the Federal Government by our United States Constitution, the Security Director is correct.
But what really is specifically reserved to the Feds?

The answer to that question is mostly contained within Article 1 Section 8 of our Constitution http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html
with an explanation of what Congress is limited to contained in Article 1 Section 9 http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec9.html
and what the Several Sovereign States are restricted from in Article 1 Section 10 http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec10.html

And again, going to the Bill Of Rights, the 9th and 10th further restrict the Feds from imposing their will upon the Sovereign States or the People themselves. But so many People no longer look at those two amendments having been convinced by a plenitude of those who think like that Security Director constantly renforcing mistaken views of how things are supposed to be.

A good number of County Sheriffs have failed to understand their actual authority and for fear of whatever or in their lust for power have accepted honorary Federal Marshal Authority (putting them under Federal Thumbs), allow the Feds to walk all over the Citizens they have sworn to protect and serve. There are a few who have stood up to the Feds and told them that any attempting to serve a process which violates any of the Amendments to our Constitution, will find themselves in jail and those they were acting against would be free. Because of that, even IRS actions against individuals in a couple of States have ground to a near halt!
Here is a link to an article about Wyoming Sheriffs doing just that. http://politicalvelcraft.org/2011/0...by-the-constitution-or-face-immediate-arrest/

Difdi · Nov 13, 2012

Boomboy007 said:
Well, our recent ballot initiative that passed regarding the adult recreational use of marijuana is a perfect example of state law being less restrictive than federal law. While it may be against federal law, without state LEO to enforce it, the Feds are pretty much screwed. They just don't have the numbers of officers required to effectively enforce that law in one state, much less 5, 10, or 50.

What federal law? In 1919, the 18th amendment was ratified. This granted Congress the authority to pass national legislation to prohibit drinking alcohol. Without the amendment, the ensuing Volstead Act would have been unconstitutional. The federal government had exactly the same degree of supremacy in this area of the law in 1918 that they do today (9th amendment, 10th amendment, 14th amendment, supremacy clause, commerce clause). And they needed the 18th amendment to prohibit alcohol.

The 21st amendment returned the authority to decide whether an intoxicant was legal or not to the states, as it had been prior to the 18th. The 21st did so by wholly repealing the 18th. The 21st did however affirm that moving a legal product in one state to a state where it was illegal would be illegal, and since such a thing is by definition interstate commerce, the federal government has authority there.

The Controlled Substances Act (and other anti-drug legislation at the federal level) existed in a constitutional gray area so long as all states prohibited those substances as well. As soon as any state legalizes any substance prohibited by the CSA, that gray area evaporates leaving only black and white behind. The federal government simply lacks the authority to criminalize marijuana against the wishes of a state within the borders of that state.

Title 18, Chapter 13, Sections 241 and 242 of the U.S. Code make it a federal crime for a public official (a police officer or DEA agent qualifies as such) to use their official authority to deny a citizen their rights. Even if federal agents are not bound by state laws, they are absolutely bound by federal laws. While the idea of a lone federal agent trying to serve an invalid federal warrant while unarmed is amusing, it's unlikely to happen. Which means that just about any attempt by the feds to unconstitutionally enforce the CSA in Washington would result in a conspiracy against rights under color of law with threat of dangerous weapons. Under 18USC241, that's punishable by execution or life in prison.

Granted, getting any police agency to police itself against its own best interests is probably futile. But it shines a wholly different legal light on shooting at federal agents during a marijuana raid, eh?

LkWd_Don · Nov 14, 2012

Difdi said:
What federal law? In 1919, the 18th amendment was ratified. This granted Congress the authority to pass national legislation to prohibit drinking alcohol. Without the amendment, the ensuing Volstead Act would have been unconstitutional. The federal government had exactly the same degree of supremacy in this area of the law in 1918 that they do today (9th amendment, 10th amendment, 14th amendment, supremacy clause, commerce clause). And they needed the 18th amendment to prohibit alcohol.

The 21st amendment returned the authority to decide whether an intoxicant was legal or not to the states, as it had been prior to the 18th. The 21st did so by wholly repealing the 18th. The 21st did however affirm that moving a legal product in one state to a state where it was illegal would be illegal, and since such a thing is by definition interstate commerce, the federal government has authority there.

The Controlled Substances Act (and other anti-drug legislation at the federal level) existed in a constitutional gray area so long as all states prohibited those substances as well. As soon as any state legalizes any substance prohibited by the CSA, that gray area evaporates leaving only black and white behind. The federal government simply lacks the authority to criminalize marijuana against the wishes of a state within the borders of that state.

Title 18, Chapter 13, Sections 241 and 242 of the U.S. Code make it a federal crime for a public official (a police officer or DEA agent qualifies as such) to use their official authority to deny a citizen their rights. Even if federal agents are not bound by state laws, they are absolutely bound by federal laws. While the idea of a lone federal agent trying to serve an invalid federal warrant while unarmed is amusing, it's unlikely to happen. Which means that just about any attempt by the feds to unconstitutionally enforce the CSA in Washington would result in a conspiracy against rights under color of law with threat of dangerous weapons. Under 18USC241, that's punishable by execution or life in prison.

Granted, getting any police agency to police itself against its own best interests is probably futile. But it shines a wholly different legal light on shooting at federal agents during a marijuana raid, eh?

I am not disagreeing with you. I do wish to bring out something that a lot might not even think about. Why was the 21st amendment required? There were States that allowed alcohol before prohibition that felt the US Government was infringing on their Sovereign rights and there were States that passed legislation after prohibition (the 18th was ratified) in direct conflict with the 18th Amendment and challenged the Feds to prove they couldn't. Back then County Sheriffs understood their power in the scheme of things and the Feds were not able to BS their way around like they do in the majority of States today. The 21st Amendment was the only way to prevent another Civil War.

Publicly speaking in defense of our rights

Citizen

Founder's Club Member

LkWd_Don

Regular Member

Difdi

Regular Member

LkWd_Don

Regular Member