A question for the armchair constitutionalists.

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

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"?

Comments

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

they are not infallible, quite true!

but then again, we arent looking for infallibility, we are looking for legal and while all laws, local state and federal laws, are BOUND to be within the confines of the constitution (or they are illegal laws, and need to be struck down) we need to look to SCOTUS to define constitutional.

let me use an analogy: baseball.

the referees are not infallible, yet, they are empowered to make a decision that others must follow. the guy who calls you being safe or out is not infallible, but, if he is wrong, too fucking bad.

much like i believe SCOTUS was wrong in citizens united (or we can go back to the dredd scott case, for a historical example) that is like me disagreeing with a referee in a sporting arena. too bad, they have the authority to make decisions and that is what they will do.

we can fire the referees or we can change the rules so the referees ruling gets nullified, what we cannot do is simply decide that referees arent referees anymore. a process, established process, needs to be followed.

so yes, states fetal personhood laws are unconstitutional and illegal.

(easy example, i know people who do door to door politicking. certain townships have attempted to require permits and a fee, for door to door electioneering type work (not even fundraising). these townships are violating SCOTUS. the jehovahs took a township to court, made it to SCOTUS and the jehovahs won. many towns still break the law however.)

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

but then again, we arent looking for infallibility, we are looking for legal and while all laws, local state and federal laws, are BOUND to be within the confines of the constitution (or they are illegal laws, and need to be struck down) we need to look to SCOTUS to define constitutional.

There are a significant amount of laws that need to be struck down and won't be because of a reliance on a "living constitution" or putting too much stock in precedent or deferring to the legislature.

This is where the problem comes in. Yes, it's law as understood right now - far too many people go along with the "well, SCOTUS said it so we're running with it." It's not something that has a lot of thought.

so yes, states fetal personhood laws are unconstitutional and illegal.

Certainly not according to the Constitution!

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

you (and I and all others) cannot ask dead people what they meant, nor can we ask a piece of paper what it means. in order to avoid those fuitless tasks, we have appointed 9 people to speak on behalf of the constitution.

neither you nor I, can say what the constitution means (we can make self-referential statements about how WE interpret it, but our interpretations are mostly irrelevant)

SCOTUS can say what the constitution means--and maybe im wrong, maybe the constitution doesnt bar fetal personhood laws. but you and I cannot say.

only SCOTUS can say; that is their job, their reason for being on the court.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

you (and I and all others) cannot ask dead people what they meant, nor can we ask a piece of paper what it means.

Seances aren't real, but their actual words that describe exactly what they mean are.

in order to avoid those fuitless tasks, we have appointed 9 people to speak on behalf of the constitution.

Well, they're designed to be a check on the other two branches, a role they've failed at numerous times.

SCOTUS can say what the constitution means--and maybe im wrong, maybe the constitution doesnt bar fetal personhood laws. but you and I cannot say.

only SCOTUS can say; that is their job, their reason for being on the court.

And what you're doing right here is buying into the myth.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

you (and I and all others) cannot ask dead people what they meant, nor can we ask a piece of paper what it means. in order to avoid those fuitless tasks, we have appointed 9 people to speak on behalf of the constitution.

My general opinion on the matter is that we had a document written by slavers who only wanted white, land-owning males of a certain age to vote.

The entire interpretation system is essentially a crutch on the garbled, vague mess we call a Constitution.

We need to rewrite it to bring it more in line with not only other national documents, but more reflective of the time we live in. Even if we rewrote it, 10 or 20 years from now it will still have problems, especially since a lot of people are on the wrong side of history in terms of gay marriage, drug prohibition, etc.

That is not to say that everything in there gets tossed out. No, the legal progress and casework we have made until now will define most of the new document. With a new Constitution, it's possible to quell a lot of issues that, at this point, have no foreseeable end because of the vagueness of the wording that will allow a controversy to live on forever, holding us back and driving this country into third world status.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Well said. I feel this way about the bible as well. So did Jefferson, but I've digressed.