ext_12976 (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
rick-day.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
talkpolitics2013-04-26 12:50 am
rick-day.livejournal.com) wrote in talkpolitics2013-04-26 12:50 am
A question for the armchair constitutionalists.
A ruling by a 3 judge panel in CO has tremendous potential impact on the politics of prohibition as well as the upheaval of the entire justice system.
The case centered on Brandon Coats, a quadriplegic medical-marijuana patient who was fired in 2010 from his job as a telephone operator for Dish Network after testing positive for the drug. Lawyers for Coats argued he was protected under a Colorado law that states it is illegal for workers to be terminated for participating in lawful activities off the clock.
But a trial court dismissed the claim in 2011, siding with Dish Network that medical marijuana use isn't a "lawful activity" covered by the termination law.
Now, even though the law has changed, the outcome for Coats has not. In its ruling, the Colorado Court of Appeals sought to define the word "lawful," ultimately concluding that for something to be lawful it "must be permitted by, and not contrary to, both state and federal law."
Oh no they didn't...
Of course, I am not a lawyer, but my opinion is if this ruling were upheld, a state's rights to enact their own Code (of laws) would be nullified if they did not mirror the Federal Code. Because if something is not directly codified as 'illegal' then it is assumed to be legal (please don't make me look up the code for that statute, it does exist).
This means all State laws contrary to Federal law are not "Lawful" laws. So all this abortion stuff from the states; now nullified if this ruling is upheld by SCOTUS? It does not even mention local and county/parish laws.
Working the logic backwards, since the word "both" was used, does this piss not run upstream; that for any federal law contrary to any state law, removes the federal statute's "lawfulness"?
The case centered on Brandon Coats, a quadriplegic medical-marijuana patient who was fired in 2010 from his job as a telephone operator for Dish Network after testing positive for the drug. Lawyers for Coats argued he was protected under a Colorado law that states it is illegal for workers to be terminated for participating in lawful activities off the clock.
But a trial court dismissed the claim in 2011, siding with Dish Network that medical marijuana use isn't a "lawful activity" covered by the termination law.
Now, even though the law has changed, the outcome for Coats has not. In its ruling, the Colorado Court of Appeals sought to define the word "lawful," ultimately concluding that for something to be lawful it "must be permitted by, and not contrary to, both state and federal law."
Oh no they didn't...
Of course, I am not a lawyer, but my opinion is if this ruling were upheld, a state's rights to enact their own Code (of laws) would be nullified if they did not mirror the Federal Code. Because if something is not directly codified as 'illegal' then it is assumed to be legal (please don't make me look up the code for that statute, it does exist).
This means all State laws contrary to Federal law are not "Lawful" laws. So all this abortion stuff from the states; now nullified if this ruling is upheld by SCOTUS? It does not even mention local and county/parish laws.
Working the logic backwards, since the word "both" was used, does this piss not run upstream; that for any federal law contrary to any state law, removes the federal statute's "lawfulness"?
no subject
By not reacting.
Like actual adults.
no subject
well okay then....another arbitrary new rule. Get insulted? don't react.
no subject
Maybe if I lack knowledge on an issue, have a question on an issue, which is exactly how my post was framed, I should become an expert in the field before asking other experts a general question to help educate me.
Instead, I should expect belittlement because my post was not 'smart enough' for you to respond in a civil way. Slapping around is the logical response to earnest questions, no matter how 'stupid' I am about constitutional law.
Of course, *nods* makes perfect sense.
no subject
I'm not sure that would sit well in court. I've been trying to picture such a situation, and somehow it always ends up looking more like Monty Python rather than Allie McBeal.
no subject
Fix'd that for ya.
no subject
I missed the rule about 'don't act like a hurt kid' when someone talks down to one like they have Downs Syndrome.
Perhaps you should dictate one, moderator? I'll follow any rule as long as it applies equally.
no subject
If you had crossed the line in a way that would warrant a more explicit mod action, you would have already witnessed such mod action - I'm sure you're aware of the nuances here.
In case you're willing to legislate a rule about "tone", make sure to come up with a proposal that contains a definition thereof that's unambiguous enough to be eligible for inclusion in the current list of rules, and I'll be the first to bring it up for review by the panel.