Sueing the Federal Law

[Zigner]

Furthermore, there is no requirement for a specific law to be enforced at any level.

 

[Cneckar]

Furthermore, there is no requirement for a specific law to be enforced at any level.

I don't understand what you mean by that.

 

[Cneckar]

No it does not automatically trump state law. The Constitution of the USA reserves some matters for the states, and some matters for the federal government. Federal Law trumps over those areas reserved to the feds, state law trumps on those areas reserved for the states.

I will give you one example of how that works...speed limits on highways. Many years back the federal government decided that 55 miles per hour was the top speed that should be allowed on highways. However, they had no authority to enforce any kind of speed limits, that was the state's jurisdiction.
Therefore the feds offered federal highway funding as an incentive for the states to adopt 55 as the maximum speed.

That worked for a while, but then the states (certain states in particular) found that 55 was just too slow, and decided to forego the federal funding and raise their speed limits. Eventually the feds gave up on the whole idea.

I understand that situation because that also was the exact same type of case when the federal government wanted the legal drinking age to be 21. They had no authority to do that and so they kinda bribed the states by saying, If you change the drinking age to 21 we will give you federal funding for highways.

But. In this case. Marijuana is recognized as a schedule 1 drug and the DEA established this which is federally funded. The federal government established this so that no doctor can prescribe it and it's recognized by the federal government as an illegal drug. Even drug on the Schedule 1 list is an illegal drug. No doctor in the entire United States can prescribe it. Just like they can't prescribe heroin or peyote. Those are 2 other drugs that are on the Schedule 1 drug list.

I'm not sure if that helped my case but it does show that the government does realize that Marijuana is an illegal drug established by the federal government.

 

[quincy]

I have already asked my teacher about this and he says the same thing. He says "If it doesn't have any affect on you, you can't sue." Which is false. ...

I mentioned in an earlier post that you had no standing to sue.

The standing to sue doctrine means that a party has, to quote Black's Law Dictionary, "sufficient stake in an otherwise justiciable controversy to obtain judicial resolution of that controversy." It is a requirement that a plaintiff has been sufficiently affected - has been injured or threatened with injury by a governmental action - to have the standing necessary to sue the government.

In other words, this does not mean that the issue you are asking about is not in itself justiciable. It just means, as your teacher said, that YOU can't sue because you are not the proper party to pursue such an action. Standing is used to determine if a party has been affected sufficiently to insure that the controversy presented to the court can be adjudicated.

"No one is entitled to assail the constitutionality of an ordinance or statute except as he himself is adversely affected by it." Sandoval v. Ryan, Colo.App., 535 P.2d 244, 247.

There is also the Administrative Procedure Act for you to review.

I would not tell your teacher that what he says is "false" until you become educated enough to present him with the factual reasons "why" what he says is false (although, in this case, what your teacher said is true).

 

[Zigner]

I don't understand what you mean by that.

I don't know how to say it any more plainly. You can't force them to enforce the law.

 

[Cneckar]

I mentioned in an earlier post that you had no standing to sue.

The standing to sue doctrine means that a party has, to quote Black's Law Dictionary, "sufficient stake in an otherwise justiciable controversy to obtain judicial resolution of that controversy." It is a requirement that a plaintiff has been sufficiently affected - has been injured or threatened with injury by a governmental action - to have the standing necessary to sue the government.

In other words, this does not mean that the issue you are asking about is not in itself justiciable. It just means, as your teacher said, that YOU can't sue because you are not the proper party to pursue such an action. Standing is used to determine if a party has been affected sufficiently to insure that the controversy presented to the court can be adjudicated.

"No one is entitled to assail the constitutionality of an ordinance or statute except as he himself is adversely affected by it." Sandoval v. Ryan, Colo.App., 535 P.2d 244, 247.

There is also the Administrative Procedure Act for you to review.

I would not tell your teacher that what he says is "false" until you become educated enough to present him with the factual reasons "why" what he says is false (although, in this case, what your teacher said is true).

Okay I understand now.

I will get back with a question for you once I get home from school.

Thank you so much.

 

[LdiJ]

I understand that situation because that also was the exact same type of case when the federal government wanted the legal drinking age to be 21. They had no authority to do that and so they kinda bribed the states by saying, If you change the drinking age to 21 we will give you federal funding for highways.

But. In this case. Marijuana is recognized as a schedule 1 drug and the DEA established this which is federally funded. The federal government established this so that no doctor can prescribe it and it's recognized by the federal government as an illegal drug. Even drug on the Schedule 1 list is an illegal drug. No doctor in the entire United States can prescribe it. Just like they can't prescribe heroin or peyote. Those are 2 other drugs that are on the Schedule 1 drug list.

I'm not sure if that helped my case but it does show that the government does realize that Marijuana is an illegal drug established by the federal government.

The federal government does not license physicians, the states do. The federal government has no control over what drugs a doctor may or may not prescribe, the state does. Therefore doctors in states where medical marijuana is legal, MAY prescribe it. Again, you are making an incorrect assumption that federal law trumps state law...and in this instance is does not.

 

[Zigner]

The federal government does not license physicians, the states do. The federal government has no control over what drugs a doctor may or may not prescribe, the state does. Therefore doctors in states where medical marijuana is legal, MAY prescribe it. Again, you are making an incorrect assumption that federal law trumps state law...and in this instance is does not.

To be fair, the feds could cite folks under federal law, no matter what the state law on marijuana is...but they won't, and they can't be forced to do so.

 

[LdiJ]

To be fair, the feds could cite folks under federal law, no matter what the state law on marijuana is...but they won't, and they can't be forced to do so.

I agree. If the FBI or other federal agency made the arrest, they could cite them under federal law. There are even some rare instances where the feds can butt into a state case and try to cite someone under federal law. However, I agree with you that they are not going to do so for marijuana in a state where marijuana is legal in one form or another.

 

[quincy]

Okay I understand now.

I will get back with a question for you once I get home from school.

Thank you so much.

Cneckar, I think you are smart to take what you have heard in class and ask for clarification or correction or expansion.

It is never wrong to question what you hear or what you read, even if what you are questioning comes from a teacher. Teachers/professors are not always right.

The source of your information is important in determining the information's veracity, but it is not (nor should it necessarily be) the only determiner.

Enjoy school.

 

[Cneckar]

The federal government does not license physicians, the states do. The federal government has no control over what drugs a doctor may or may not prescribe, the state does. Therefore doctors in states where medical marijuana is legal, MAY prescribe it. Again, you are making an incorrect assumption that federal law trumps state law...and in this instance is does not.

What's the point of the DEA then? Why even have it?

 

[Zigner]

What's the point of the DEA then? Why even have it?

https://www.dea.gov/about/mission.shtml


But you really don't seem to be willing to understand that one cannot force the enforcement of a law.

 

[Cneckar]

https://www.dea.gov/about/mission.shtml


But you really don't seem to be willing to understand that one cannot force the enforcement of a law.

I know the mission statement of the DEA. Why is the DEA run by the Federal Government writing all of these schedules then for all these different type of drugs?

So you're saying that if a state like Texas legalized Heroin then the Federal Government couldn't do a thing about it.

Why can't they enforce a law then? I understand in some cases they can't but in this case they can.

 

[Zigner]

I know the mission statement of the DEA. Why is the DEA run by the Federal Government writing all of these schedules then for all these different type of drugs?

So you're saying that if a state like Texas legalized Heroin then the Federal Government couldn't do a thing about it.

Why can't they enforce a law then? I understand in some cases they can't but in this case they can.

They CAN enforce the law. They don't HAVE TO enforce the law.

 

[quincy]

What's the point of the DEA then? Why even have it?

You might be interested in searching for old laws that are still "in force" in states that are not "enforced" in states because enforcement no longer benefits society.