![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
rick-day.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsA 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)
Date: 26/4/13 21:14 (UTC)Not sure the Founding Fathers saw this as a way to fire ADA employees for metabolites in their urine.
Easy.
(no subject)
Date: 26/4/13 21:18 (UTC)im not defending what SCOTUS says or does; merely pointing out that they are the ultimate authority on what is constitutional. we created a closed set.
lawmakers may alter the constitution but that alteration is, ultimately, interpreted via the courts.
whats hard here?
congress creates, courts interpret, executives execute
(no subject)
Date: 26/4/13 21:30 (UTC)technically, it is off subject.
The question was: "In law, knowing the devil is always in the details, does the specific wording of the Appeals Court open a two way pipeline between the exact meshing of federal to state laws, and visa versa".
(no subject)
Date: 26/4/13 21:54 (UTC)there is no problem with the judges ruling. something is illegal if it is not legal, simply enough. now the city od denver may not have a law against X, but the state or feds do, it is not legal. same if city and state dont and feds do.
in fact, if any level of govt, that represents the place you reside (ie, NY state law doesnt effect NJ) has a law against X, inside that district, it is illegal.
its not legal to have medicinal pot. but it damm well should be.
its not an exact meshing. NYS could outlaw something the feds have not--the law applies only in NYS. the feds could outlaw something NYS has not--the law applies throughout the entire domain of the federal govt.
im not seeing the problem you raise....
(no subject)
Date: 27/4/13 02:28 (UTC)Based on what? You've given assent already to the notion that they're the ultimate arbiter of the law. From what greater authority would you -could anyone- declare them to be what 'should' be?