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

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

In California, you can't work for State or City government jobs without being fired for marijuana use, despite it being legal with doctor verification. It's unjustified but much like the twisted interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Act used by the federal DEA to harass legal marijuana in states like CA or Colorado, it seems that judges always side with such moves.

[rowsdowerisms.livejournal.com]

Dude, your a Civil War late on this one.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

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.

Seriously? This guy is trying to earn a living. He is in more daily pain than many will ever know. And they fire him for weed from a freaking phone support gig?

Fuck Dish for one thing.

Constitution lovers: Medical marijuana patients cannot own a firearm:
http://blog.sfgate.com/djsaunders/2013/03/26/if-you-own-medical-marijuana-ditch-the-gun/

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

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?

Welcome to law by SCOTUS, not law as written.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

Gonzalez v. Raich unfortunately spelled the doom for the ability for states to legalize something that the Federal Government doesn't like. If they can make a case that it falls under Art 1, Sec 8, they'll assert authority.

[aviv-b.livejournal.com]

I think you are seeing the application of Preemption of State Law under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.


A doctrine based on the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution that holds that certain matters are of such a national, as opposed to local, character that federal laws preempt or take precedence over state laws. As such, a state may not pass a law inconsistent with the federal law.

A doctrine of state law that holds that a state law displaces a local law or regulation that is in the same field and is in conflict or inconsistent with the state law.

Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution provides that the "… Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land." This Supremacy Clause has come to mean that the national government, in exercising any of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, must prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power. The federal preemption doctrine is a judicial response to the conflict between federal and state legislation. When it is clearly established that a federal law preempts a state law, the state law must be declared invalid.

A state law may be struck down even when it does not explicitly conflict with federal law, if a court finds that Congress has legitimately occupied the field with federal legislation. Questions in this area require careful Balancing of important state and federal interests. Problems arise when Congress fails to make its purpose explicit, which is often the case. The court must then draw inferences based on the presumed objectives of federal law and the supposed impact of related State Action.

More on specific rulings (health care, environmental regulations, etc.) here: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Preemption+of+State+and+Local+Laws (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Preemption+of+State+and+Local+Laws)

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

This is not to sound mean, but:

did you read the entire (majority) decision?

it seems perfectly clear to me after reading it that there is no issue here that risks the upheaval of the justice system, as your first paragraph suggests.

its a good ruling, technically**; it simply sucks that federal law is so shitty on drug policy.


(makes me think of futurama: 'you are technically correct bureaucrat Hermes, the best kind of correct!)

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

Oh, Colorado. I am disappoint. Historically, as a general rule of thumb in the U.S., an activity is legal if it is not specifically illegal. I think it is prescriptive vs restrictive- one specifically says what is allowed, the other says what is specifically forbidden. The U.S. has generally followed the latter (if its not specifically forbidden it is allowed), but this seems to indicate support of the former (only what is specifically allowed is, well, allowed).

Then again, lawful and legal may not be the same thing, either...