Question About Fed Laws and State Laws

[Townhallsavoy]

"This is a tough problem, because Congress has not yet changed the law," Obama said. "I head up the executive branch; we're supposed to be carrying out laws. And so what we're going to need to have is a conversation about, How do you reconcile a federal law that still says marijuana is a federal offense and state laws that say that it's legal?"

I'm going to substitute a few words in this quote:

"This is a tough problem, because Congress has not yet changed the law," the president said. "I head up the executive branch; we're supposed to be carrying out laws. And so what we're going to need to have is a conversation about, How do you reconcile a federal law that still says slavery is a federal offense and state laws that say that it's legal?"

How is this any different? 

Either the feds have more power than the states and can tell them to do or not do something against their will, or the states have the power to write their own rulebook and the fed have no authority to change it.

[Vandy Vol]

I don't think he was trying to say that the federal government has no ability to enforce federal laws over state laws; the DoJ threatened action against California last year, and even raided dispensaries if my recollection is correct.

I think he may be subtly addressing the issue of how the federal government should approach the issue, not whether they can approach the issue.  When you've got 18 states that have legalized marijuana for medicinal purposes, and 2 states that have legalized it for recreational use, you have to step back and realize that the public's view on the drug is changing.  This means that the federal government needs to take into account the people's will, and may need to change its laws and/or the manner in which it enforces its laws on this particular topic.

[CCTAU]

I don't think he was trying to say that the federal government has no ability to enforce federal laws over state laws; the DoJ threatened action against California last year, and even raided dispensaries if my recollection is correct.

I think he may be subtly addressing the issue of how the federal government should approach the issue, not whether they can approach the issue.  When you've got 18 states that have legalized marijuana for medicinal purposes, and 2 states that have legalized it for recreational use, you have to step back and realize that the public's view on the drug is changing.  This means that the federal government needs to take into account the people's will, and may need to change its laws and/or the manner in which it enforces its laws on this particular topic.

Agreed. Slavery was affront to humanity. Smoking a naturally occurring leaf is not.

And as anyone who has ever read our history knows, the south was the only place and time in history to have slaves..EVER. So we still must pay for that today....sorry. saw a rabbit.


I find this to be the same as the legal drinking age. The federal government had no right to demand a uniform age. Let states decide.

[WiregrassTiger]

And as anyone who has ever read our history knows, the south was the only place and time in history to have slaves..EVER. So we still must pay for that today....sorry. saw a rabbit.

See, I was getting all po'd and ereythang getting ready to defend my Southern heritage when it dawned on me that you be messin with my head. Kudos.

[AWK]

The Fed's have had more power than the States since FDR made it so...this really isn't news.

[Saniflush]

The Fed's have had more power than the States since FDR Lincoln made it so...this really isn't news.

Fixt

[GH2001]

Fixt

You my boy blue

[Townhallsavoy]

I don't think he was trying to say that the federal government has no ability to enforce federal laws over state laws; the DoJ threatened action against California last year, and even raided dispensaries if my recollection is correct.

I think he may be subtly addressing the issue of how the federal government should approach the issue, not whether they can approach the issue.  When you've got 18 states that have legalized marijuana for medicinal purposes, and 2 states that have legalized it for recreational use, you have to step back and realize that the public's view on the drug is changing.  This means that the federal government needs to take into account the people's will, and may need to change its laws and/or the manner in which it enforces its laws on this particular topic.

18 for medicinal and 2 for recreational is not a majority.

Slavery was too extreme.  How about segregation? 

Or how about opting completely out of Obamacare and implementing their own healthcare system? 

Or how about gun laws? 

I don't understand why the federal government, who has the power to override state government, would question its own laws simply because a few states tried to override them.  I'm also questioning if the federal government would really listen to the will of the people on all issues and question its own laws or if this is just a case of Obama's administration wanting to find a way to legalize pot or end the war on drugs.

And don't get me wrong, I'm against the war on drugs.  I'm also against dishonesty. 

[Vandy Vol]

18 for medicinal and 2 for recreational is not a majority.

I never said it was.  However, it is a significant number of states.  Additionally, you have to consider that these are only the states which have voted on and passed legislation; just because 40% of states have legalized marijuana in some fashion does not mean that only 40% of the population supports legalization of marijuana in some fashion.

*Edit - Before anyone begins to nitpick at the math, I was too lazy to look up whether the two recreational states had previously passed legislation regarding medicinal use, and whether they're included in the 18.  I just assumed for simplicity's sake that there were 20 states total that have legalized marijuana in some fashion.

Slavery was too extreme.  How about segregation? 

Or how about opting completely out of Obamacare and implementing their own healthcare system? 

Or how about gun laws? 

I don't understand why the federal government, who has the power to override state government, would question its own laws simply because a few states tried to override them.  I'm also questioning if the federal government would really listen to the will of the people on all issues and question its own laws or if this is just a case of Obama's administration wanting to find a way to legalize pot or end the war on drugs.

It probably has something to do with the fact that we are in a financial shit hole, and the legalization of marijuana would lead to tax revenue and the creation of jobs.  Not to mention that attempting to enforce a federal law on states that reject said law would begin to cost more as the number of states that reject said law increases.

I don't know of any states that have created legislation which contradicts the Obamacare legislation.  I don't know of any states that have gun laws which conflict with federal gun laws.  If either of those were to occur, then the federal government would have to take a step back and analyze how they're approaching these issues, just as they're currently doing with the marijuana issue.

I'm not saying that the federal government is going to always repeal or alter laws simply because states enact conflicting legislation.  However, when you have state governments officially refusing to abide by federal laws, and when there are quite a few state governments that have done so, then the federal government should begin to question how they need to approach this.  Either we spend tons of money enforcing a federal law that is actively and intentionally being broken by a multitude of states, or we re-evaluate the federal law and our options for amendment/repeal.