State vs State

[doofus47]

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_27...a-legalization

Summary: Nebraska and Oklahoma (who thought those two states would ever agree to anything ...?) are mutually suing Colorado b/c of Colorado's move to de-criminalize marijuana.
I see this as a bad precedent in the sense that, should this succeed, crazy states like NY or CA might start suing the rest of us to ban 30 round mags, etc.
Am I being paranoid or prescient?

[Aguila Blanca]

30-round magazines aren't against federal law. Marijuana is. I think they have a potentially stronger case suing over decriminalizing something that's a federal crime than any state or states would have trying to sue a neighbor over something that's not addressed by the feds, leaving a court no basis on which to hang its judicial hat if it (the court) were to try to tell a state that it can't control its own internal affairs.

[speedrrracer]

Volokh's blog has similar concerns, so you're being prescient, or at least in agreement with a noted legal scholar:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/v...n-in-colorado/

although not related to magazines, but far broader issues, such as the current and worsening condition of Federal dominance over the states

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by speedrrracer

Volokh's blog has similar concerns, so you're being prescient, or at least in agreement with a noted legal scholar:

Stupendous!

Now ... if I could just manage to write something that Frank Ettin doesn't poke holes in, I could die a happy man.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

Now ... if I could just manage to write something that Frank Ettin doesn't poke holes in, I could die a happy man.

I could not possibly poke any holes in that statement. But I have no wish for you to die. The world is a more interesting and better place with you in it.

[Tom Servo]

When it's two states suing each other, doesn't that mean the Supreme Court has to resolve it?

If so, I wonder if this might pave the way to federal action on the issue. As it stands, there's a huge potential conflict between state-level "legalization" and 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(3).

[KyJim]

When it's two states suing each other, doesn't that mean the Supreme Court has to resolve it?

That is correct. It is usually referred to a Special Master who actually oversees the litigation and then makes recommendations to the Supreme Court.

If so, I wonder if this might pave the way to federal action on the issue. As it stands, there's a huge potential conflict between state-level "legalization" and 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(3).

I'm no constitutional scholar but I don't think the suing states will be successful. There are too many practical concerns -- it would open up a Pandora's box of issues.

[Tom Servo]

I'm no constitutional scholar but I don't think the suing states will be successful.

Nor do I, but I wonder what the Justices will say about the situation. If they invoke Wickard and Raich, it could undermine Colorado's "legalization."

That, or we could see an influential dissent on the federal ban that spurs legislative action.

[Armorer-at-Law]

From Volokh's blog:

Nebraska and Oklahoma argue that Colorado’s decision to legalize marijuana under state law, in the face of continuing federal prohibition, harms neighboring states because it facilitates the flow of marijuana across their borders and may increase crime there. Liberal states with strict gun control laws raise exactly the same complaints about the flow of guns from neighboring conservative states with relatively permissive firearms laws. If Nebraska and Oklahoma can force Colorado to criminalize marijuana under state law because the federal government has done so under federal law, then Maryland can force Virginia to ban any gun sales that are restricted under federal law.

This doesn't seem like a valid comparison. With the possible exception of registration of NFA firearms made, sold and used within a single state, federal gun laws are not more restrictive than any states' laws. And the exception I described has already been challenged and lost at SCOTUS. Maryland doesn't need to "force Virginia to ban any gun sales that are restricted under federal law" because that is already (and always has been) the case.

[btmj]

There are many activities which are federal crimes but which are not state crimes.

Trading in securities using insider information is against federal law. The SEC and FBI aggressively investigate insider trading. The Justice department has made it a priority (recent embarrassing losses in court notwithstanding). It is a serious crime with long prison sentences.

In my state of Missouri, insider trading is not a state crime. As far as the state goes, insider trading is "legal". The local police do not attempt to enforce insider trading laws.

I don't see any real difference between Colorado's stance on pot, and Missouri's stand on insider trading. In both cases, the lack of state criminal statutes, and the lack of state level enforcement, is irrelevant at the federal level. The only difference is that up to now, the feds have had a lot of state level help in investigating and prosecuting marijuana cases... whereas the feds are pretty use to going it solo when it comes to insider trading cases.

Nebraska and Oklahoma suit against Colorado is so silly... After prohibition ended, most states legalized alcohol, but some didn't. Those that didn't would have been wrong to sue the other states.... but that is basically what Nebraska and Oklahoma are doing.