Verified answer

From my reading of it, I would say that Prop. 19 would also violate the Supremacy Clause...

he Supremacy Clause has been interpreted to come in effect only when the Federal Government has acted in a given field. In the case of Edgar v. Mite Corporation, 457 U.S. 624 (1982), the Supreme Court ruled that "A state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid Federal statute." In effect, this means that a State law will be found to violate the supremacy clause when either of the following two conditions (or both) exist:[1]

Compliance with both the Federal and State laws is impossible, or

Actually the ruling was that local law enforcement can not be "compelled" to check legal status, it does not forbid them from doing so. That compelling of law enforcement has been ruled against.

I read Franco's response and I agree with him. In fact his very statement regarding the Supremacy Clause is why I think that Arizona will win on appeal.

It is not impossible to enforce the federal law, in fact enforcing the AZ law would be an enforcement of the federal law.

Franco did leave off the other statement which is

..state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress..

I would ask how a law that mirrors federal law stands as an obstacle.

CA Prop 19, again Federal laws can not be enforced by CA LEOs if it is passed, this has to be a violation of the Supremacy Clause. What about California Penal Code 834b. This law is very similar to the Arizona law, yet California has not been sued.

There are many state laws that are very similar to Federal laws. State laws can not usurp the laws that are Federal, they can enhance federal laws as long as the two conditions of the Supreme Court finding are held intact.

Tee hee, "Your Assistant" is funny. He doesn't seem to understand what a republic is, but that's cool.

As for the rest, the Supreme Court ruled in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), that even marijuana grown at home exclusively for consumption at home can be constitutionally regulated through the interstate commerce clause. This is based on Wickard v. Filburn, , 317 U.S. 111 (1942), and while I think it's a ridiculous ruling based on an equally ridiculous precedent, what the Court says goes. This is one of the very, very few cases where I think Clarence Thomas had it precisely right.

Arizona wasn't told that, all they were told is that an injunction would stand until the court decided it. However, they will be told that the Fed's have jurisdiction over immigration and it will be ruled an unconstitutional law, you are just jumping the gun and reading more into the injunction then what actually happened.

Edit: Gee Wally you won't even let me agree with you, I said you jumped the gun, not that your wrong.

Just because some X-clinton hack judge was too chicken S**T to actually rule fairly based on justice and precidents and listened to the lies of the liberal media, Don't be so happy and start dancing like a retard. Your not going to win any 'fight' with 70% of America agreeing with the legislation. You should worry that the 30% don't piss off the 70% and start becoming extinct.

Amnesty for illegals and stoners. You want to cut the budget deficit? Stop spending shitloads of money chasing down the stoners and lettuce pickers, and instead collect taxes from them. Seems simple enough to me.

Prop 19 is illegal by federal standards but like the border security Obama choose not to enforce that either.

Every case is different. As far as weed being legal, that is actually a positive measure. What is going on in Arizona is more like the gustopo of Nazi Germany in a way.

I am 100% against violent crime and I understand that illegal latinos may contribute to that, but most of em just want to work like everybody else. The fact that they can't figure out a descent way to make everybody happy shows how stupid Americans have become.

Obama could care less about California making marijuana legal or not, he'd toke up regardless

Wow

Some damn good points are being made tonight

Edward: Won't wash, the libs pet judge didn't touch the interstate clause; she did rule that federal law was not subservient to tate law (which will be overturned on appeal)