![[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"?
Talk down to others much?
Date: 27/4/13 14:46 (UTC)Pretty condescending, as well. Do us a favor: don't have children - you will never have the patience to answer questions without much more than your condescending tone.
Now..to your assertions...um no, sorry. I DO understand all of this. The confusion lies on your part. Allow me to elaborate.
Re read the decision; between paragraphs 13 and 14 is a HUGE leap of logic. Although the court took great pains to clarify their positions, only Raiche seemed to have any bearing on the case but there was no marijuana laws broken.
The court seems to be taking an apples-to-oranges approach to this 'unlawful activity'. The plaintiff was 'guilty' of violating a policy; the 'unlawful activity' of having certain metabolites in his system. THERE IS NO FEDERAL LAW against possession of metabolites. It is not a federal crime.It is not even a Federal Crime to be high in the privacy of one's home. Sorry, I can not cite what is not there. It's just not unlawful.
Absence of Federal law allows the system to then turn to state law. But state law does not prohibit the possession of metabolites either. Where is the unlawful activity? Only "possession [sales growing etc] of cannabis" is a crime. This is a private employee to private employer issue.
(interpreting the word âœlawfulâ in the North Dakota Human Rights Act to mean âœauthorized by law and not contrary to, nor forbidden by lawâ (citing Blackâ™s Law Dictionary 797 (5th ed. 1979)))
That is their basis? Really?
If that is the basis for their decision in paragraph 14 it would be quite a leap of logic, I must say.
for an activity to be âœlawfulâ in Colorado, it must be permitted by, and not contrary to, both state and federal law. Conversely, an activity that violates federal law but complies with state law cannot be âœlawfulâ under the ordinary meaning of that term. Therefore, applying the plain and ordinary meaning, the term âœlawful activityâ in section 24-34-402.5,
means that the activity â“ here, plaintiffâ™s medical marijuana use â“ must comply with both state and federal law
The court, when using the word conversely, contradicted themselves between the two sentences.
con·verse·ly
/ˈkänvərslē/
Adverb
Introducing a statement or idea that reverses one that has just been made or referred to.
In other words the two statement's conflict, which the court recognizes. The first statement clearly uses the term 'both' when describing if something is lawful or not. This is, according to the wording of the decision, describing legal activity, not illegal activity. The court is confusing the two because technically no laws or statutes were violated here; no crime was committed.
The court clearly is confusing illegal activity codified by law with legal activity not specifically prohibited. They indicate that only activities deemed illegal are subject to the Supremacy Clause (something I am well aware of; this is why I posted my 'pretty confused post' because...guess what..I was CONFUSED about this specific wording. Wow. You are amazing.
The declaratory statement is clear: for an activity to
be âœlawfulâ in Colorado, it must be permitted by, and not contrary to, both state and federal law.
The law codifies only illegal activity, exceptions and specific remedies. It is all 'forbids' and not 'allows'.
That can be interpreted that unless an activity is specifically allowed, it is deemed 'not legal' unless it is allowed by both state and federal law.
This is why I highlighted that specific sentence in the decision. It seems to establish that only lawful activity must be codified and allowed under state and federal law. If it is not specifically allowed, it is specifically prohibited.
That undoes a whole heck of a lot of established rights the states have to determine illegal activity. Because now, all legal activity must be codified, or it is not considered lawful.
The abortion thing is just going over your head so let it go. I'm tired of typing LOL..
(no subject)
Date: 27/4/13 15:40 (UTC)Ad hominem alert. Try not acting like a hurt child - if you can.
(no subject)
Date: 27/4/13 18:35 (UTC)tell me again how I am supposed to not react?
Also enlighten me on how adults in this community are supposed to respond to insults?
(no subject)
Date: 27/4/13 20:28 (UTC)By not reacting.
Like actual adults.
(no subject)
Date: 27/4/13 21:04 (UTC)well okay then....another arbitrary new rule. Get insulted? don't react.
(no subject)
Date: 28/4/13 00:52 (UTC)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)
Date: 28/4/13 08:39 (UTC)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)
Date: 27/4/13 22:36 (UTC)Fix'd that for ya.
(no subject)
Date: 28/4/13 00:59 (UTC)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)
Date: 28/4/13 08:44 (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 27/4/13 18:36 (UTC)I'm cool with my place in this post :)