Quote:
Originally Posted by excelblue
Finally, as for legality: federal law superseding California law in that aspect is actually debatable. I can envision a significant Supreme Court case around the 9th amendment sometime in the future. Question is, if you're in California, who'd care enough to fight it if it technically isn't even a "crime"?
|
I don't think it's that debatable, really. Article VI (Clause 2) of the United States Constitution says:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding
Likewise, Article 3, section 1, of the California Constitution says:
The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
Nor do I think there's a real Ninth Amendment issue. In
Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), SCOTUS held (6-3) that the federal government may criminalize the cultivation and private use of cannabis for medicinal purposes even though state law (California) permits such private cultivation and use. Although the opinion does not mention (I don't think) the Ninth Amendment, it makes clear that Congress has authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate the growth and use of cannabis. That being the case, the Supremacy Clause means federal law will trump state law.