I can see it both ways. Your post in #4 hits some important details.
The national supremacy clause is applicable here.
I think it does, but what matters is what the SCOTUS will think.
I can see how local and state police have discretion to enforce federal laws as well.
Law enforcement officials do not have discretion regarding whether or not to enforce a law.
Local and state cops, for example, don't arrest people for simple marijuana possession in CO.
That's a great point, and the question over state versus federal law regarding MJ is winding its way through the court system right now. So, we really don't know how that one's going to turn out. One thing that makes these two cases different, is that the DEA (an Executive Branch Agency) is the one that classified Marijuana (or more accurately Tetrahydrocannabinol-THC) as a Schedule I substance (
The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 gives the DEA that authority) and the case in this thread is regarding a law and requirements passed by the Congress, and not a regulation implemented by the Executive Branch - hence the Supremacy Clause problem I mentioned.
Even though, federal law places MJ as a Schedule 1 controlled substance. Can they then make a public health argument that concludes to withhold federal Medicaid funding, if CO fails to enforce MJ laws?
Like I said above, the listing of MJ as a Schedule I drug is an executive action and not a law passed by Congress. To the guy getting arrested by the feds for MJ charges, it makes no difference, but to the courts and the lawyers, it most definitely does.
Either way, Jerry Brown has pledged to fight Trump the entire way and I look forward to the fireworks.
Brown is going to fight Trump over everything. That's just California and west coast politics at play. I agree that it will be a show to watch.
Trump can probably withhold funds for sanctuary cities, and that would be a battle I would pick, if I were Trump. Leave the Wall and Muslim ban alone, and go after sanctuary cities. He'll get more Americans on his side by fighting the sanctuary city battle, IMO.
This is a matter or right versus wrong, not right versus left. The law is what the law is. If some folks want to change the law, then they have to get enough people to agree with them to the point that they can get a majority in Congress to vote for that change. Until then, the law is the law.
As for borders, without them, we aren't a nation. We'd just be a territory, a lawless territory.
We can't have federal government funded social programs if we are not going to restrict them to US citizens only, and right now that isn't happening. It's supposed to be happening, but it isn't. One example is that hospitals are getting federal funding to cover the costs associated with illegal aliens that show up in the ER needing medical attention. The same goes for schools - public schools are getting federal funding that help cover the costs of illegal alien children to be educated, get free lunches, and so on, in our public school systems.
Those of us that actually pay federal taxes, can't afford that for long, and we dang sure shouldn't be expected to pay federal taxes to cover the costs associated with non-citizens, other than the cost of deportation. Either that, or change the law.
