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