[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

How Ridiculous? Blade-Less Swiss Army Knife Debuts As Weapon Laws Tighten

Jewish students beaten with sticks at University of Amsterdam

Terrorists shut down Park Avenue.

Police begin arresting democrats outside Met Gala.

The minute the total solar eclipse appeared over US

Three Types Of People To Mark And Avoid In The Church Today

Are The 4 Horsemen Of The Apocalypse About To Appear?

France sends combat troops to Ukraine battlefront

Facts you may not have heard about Muslims in England.

George Washington University raises the Hamas flag. American Flag has been removed.

Alabama students chant Take A Shower to the Hamas terrorists on campus.

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

Deadly Saltwater and Deadly Fresh Water to Increase

Deadly Cancers to soon Become Thing of the Past?

Plague of deadly New Diseases Continues

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: Wisconsin Moves to Be First State Ever to Nullify Federal Cannabis Prohibition Through Legislation
Source: Free
URL Source: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/wi ... -federal-cannabis-prohibition/
Published: Sep 5, 2017
Author: Jay Syrmopoulos
Post Date: 2017-09-06 09:34:14 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 4966
Comments: 27

Madison, WI – Yet another state is moving towards legalizing cannabis for medical and recreational use. However, Wisconsin is going about it in a most Constitutional way. The state of Wisconsin introduced a bill last week that would effectively nullify the federal prohibition of marijuana in the state.

According to the 10th Amendment Center:

“Rep. Melissa Sargent (D-Madison) and 17 co-sponsors introduced Assembly Bill 482 (AB482) on Aug. 24. The legislation would legalize marijuana under a tax-and-regulate system enforced at the state level similar to alcohol. Under the proposed law, a Wisconsin resident who is at least 21 could legally possess no more than two ounces of marijuana and a nonresident of Wisconsin who is at least 21 could possess no more than one-quarter ounce of marijuana. The legislation would also create a licensing structure for the cultivation, processing and sale of marijuana. Additionally, the bill would create a process for medical marijuana use.”

“This bill is so much more than legalizing marijuana—it’s about legalizing opportunity and prosperity,” Rep. Sargent said. “The state budget was due two weeks ago, and Wisconsin simply can’t afford to wait any longer. We deserve a real plan to create new jobs and stimulate our lagging economy, and that’s what this bill is.”

If successful, the legislation would make Wisconsin the first state to legalize cannabis through a state legislative process, as every other state has utilized a ballot initiative to effectively nullify the federal prohibition.

State nullification of federal marijuana prohibition is completely constitutional, with the feds having little, if any, recourse to stop the process. Despite the federal contention that the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) gives the federal government authority to completely prohibit cannabis within a state’s borders, one need only ask themselves why a constitutional amendment was necessary to enact a nationwide prohibition on alcohol to clearly see the flimsy basis on which the federal prohibition of cannabis stands.

While federal prohibition would remain on the books, the passage of AB482 would remove the vast majority of laws prohibiting the use and possession of marijuana under which people are prosecuted by law enforcement in Wisconsin.

The reality is that law enforcement in Wisconsin makes approximately 99 of 100 marijuana arrests under state, not federal law, according to FBI statistics. By choosing to end the state prohibition of cannabis, Wisconsin can effectively eliminate the basis for 99 percent of arrests for cannabis.

It’s clear the federal government lacks the resources to prohibit marijuana without the assistance of state governments. Figures indicate that it would take 40 percent of the DEA’s annual budget to simply investigate and raid the dispensaries in just the city of Los Angeles—a single city in just one state.

If this legislation passes, Wisconsin will become the latest of a growing number of states that have chosen to nullify marijuana prohibition. However, it would be the first state to legalize recreational marijuana through the state legislature rather than the ballot initiative process.

Colorado, Washington state, Oregon and Alaska were the first states to usurp the federal probation of cannabis for recreational use, only to be joined by California, Nevada, Maine and Massachusetts after successful ballot initiatives to legalize cannabis last year.

Additionally, a total of 29 states, the District of Columbia, Guam and Puerto Rico now allow for comprehensive public medical marijuana and cannabis programs, while recently approved efforts in 18 states allow use of “low THC, high cannabidiol (CBD)” products for medical reasons in limited situations or as a legal defense, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

With a majority of states now allowing cannabis for medical use as well, the federal government finds themselves in a position where they can no longer sustain the ability to enforce marijuana prohibition.

“The lesson here is pretty straight forward. When enough people say, ‘No!’ to the federal government, and enough states pass laws backing those people up, there’s not much the feds can do to shove their so-called laws, regulations or mandates down our throats,” Tenth Amendment Center founder and executive director Michael Boldin said.

Currently, AB482 is in the Assembly Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety. The legislation will need to pass by a majority vote before it can be considered by the full State Assembly.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 26.

#24. To: Deckard (#0)

Madison, WI – Yet another state is moving towards legalizing cannabis for medical and recreational use. However, Wisconsin is going about it in a most Constitutional way. The state of Wisconsin introduced a bill last week that would effectively nullify the federal prohibition of marijuana in the state.

There is no such thing as a State law that effectively nullifies a Federal law. No matter how many times it is repeated, it continues to be bullshit.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-15_d1oe.pdf

(Slip Opinion)

OCTOBER TERM, 2014 Syllabus

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

ARMSTRONG ET AL. v. EXCEPTIONAL CHILD CENTER, INC., ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No. 14–15.

Argued January 20, 2015—Decided March 31, 2015

Providers of “habilitation services” under Idaho’s Medicaid plan arereimbursed by the State’s Department of Health and Welfare. Sec­tion 30(A) of the Medicaid Act requires Idaho’s plan to “assure that payments are consistent with efficiency, economy, and quality ofcare” while “safeguard[ing] against unnecessary utilization of . . .care and services.” 42 U. S. C. §1396a(a)(30)(A). Respondents, pro­viders of habilitation services, sued petitioners, Idaho Health andWelfare Department officials, claiming that Idaho reimbursed themat rates lower than §30(A) permits, and seeking to enjoin petitioners to increase these rates. The District Court entered summary judg­ment for the providers. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, concluding thatthe Supremacy Clause gave the providers an implied right of action, and that they could sue under this implied right of action to seek an injunction requiring Idaho to comply with §30(a).

Held: The judgment is reversed.

567 Fed. Appx. 496, reversed.

JUSTICE SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part IV, concluding that the Supremacy Clause does not confer a private right of action, and that Medicaid providers cannot sue for an injunc­tion requiring compliance with §30(a). Pp. 3–10.

(a) The Supremacy Clause instructs courts to give federal law pri­ority when state and federal law clash. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 210.

[...]

At 3:

II

The Supremacy Clause, Art. VI, cl. 2, reads:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

It is apparent that this Clause creates a rule of decision: Courts “shall” regard the “Constitution,” and all laws “made in Pursuance thereof,” as “the supreme Law of the Land.” They must not give effect to state laws that conflict with federal laws. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 210 (1824).

http://loc.heinonline.org/loc/Page?handle=hein.usreports/usrep22&id=9&collection=journals&index=usreportsloc#217

Gibbons v Ogden, 22 US 1, 209-11 (1824)

9 Wheat. 1, 6 L.Ed 29

United States Supreme Court

GIBBONS v. OGDEN, (1824)

No. 43

Decided: March 2, 1824

[...]

At 209-211

Since, however, in exercising the power of regulating their own purely internal affairs, whether

[22 U.S. 210]

of trading or police, the States may sometimes enact laws, the validity of which depends on their interfering with, and being contrary to, an act of Congress passed in pursuance of the constitution, the Court will enter upon the inquiry, whether the laws of New-York, as expounded by the highest tribunal of that State, have, in their application to this case, come into collision with an act of Congress, and deprived a citizen of a right to which that act entitles him. Should this collision exist, it will be immaterial whether those laws were passed in virtue of a concurrent power ‘to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States,’ or, in virtue of a power to regulate their domestic trade and police. In one case and the other, the acts of New-York must yield to the law of Congress; and the decision sustaining the privilege they confer, against a right given by a law of the Union, must be erroneous.

This opinion has been frequently expressed in this Court, and is founded, as well on the nature of the government as on the words of the constitution. In argument, however, it has been contended, that if a law passed by a State, in the exercise of its acknowledged sovereignty, comes into conflict with a law passed by Congress in pursuance of the constitution, they affect the subject, and each other, like equal opposing powers.

But the framers of our constitution foresaw this state of things, and provided for it, by declaring the supremacy not only of itself, but of the laws made in pursuance of it. The nullity of any act,

[22 U.S. 211]

inconsistent with the constitution, is produced by the declaration, that the constitution is the supreme law. The appropriate application of that part of the clause which confers the same supremacy on laws and treaties, is to such acts of the State Legislatures as do not transcend their powers, but, though enacted in the execution of acknowledged State powers, interfere with, or are contrary to the laws of Congress, made in pursuance of the constitution, or some treaty made under the authority of the United States. In every such case, the act of Congress, or the treaty, is supreme; and the law of the State, though enacted in the exercise of powers not controverted, must yield to it.

http://loc.heinonline.org/loc/Page?handle=hein.usreports/usrep457&id=675#675

Edgar v. Mite Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 631 (23 June 1982)

Of course, a state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute; and

"[a] conflict will be found 'where compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility...,' Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U. S. 132, 142-143 (1963), or where the state 'law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.' Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52, 67 (1941); Jones v. Rath Packing Co., [430 U. S. 519,] 526, 540-541 [(1977)].

Accord, De Canas v. Bica, 424 U. S. 351, 363 (1976)." Ray v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 435 U. S. 151, 158 (1978).

nolu chan  posted on  2017-09-06   16:42:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: nolu chan, Deckard (#24)

There is no such thing as a State law that effectively nullifies a Federal law. No matter how many times it is repeated, it continues to be bullshit.

I grasp your point and agree, having said much the same.

Deckard is saying that it would take the vast majority of in-state prosecutions off the books and that the feds can't possibly take up the slack with their own enforcement and prosecutions. And he is probably right.

So, in the same sense that jury nullification doesn't actually repeal any laws but will sharply diminish enforcement and prosecutions, it could be said that taking state enforcement of federal laws off the books entirely does effectively nullify the impact of federal law in the state. The federal law isn't nullified by the state law but will have a huge impace on the vast numbers of arrests/prosecutions/convictions.

There's more than one way to skin a cat.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-06   19:26:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 26.

        There are no replies to Comment # 26.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 26.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com