[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"There’s a Word for the West’s Appeasement of Militant Islam"

"The Bondi Beach Jihad: Sharia Supremacism and Jew Hatred, Again"

"This Is How We Win a New Cold War With China"

"How Europe Fell Behind"

"The Epstein Conspiracy in Plain Sight"

Saint Nicholas The Real St. Nick

Will Atheists in China Starve Due to No Fish to Eat?

A Thirteen State Solution for the Holy Land?

US Sends new Missle to a Pacific ally, angering China and Russia Moscow and Peoking

DeaTh noTice ... Freerepublic --- lasT Monday JR died

"‘We Are Not the Crazy Ones’: AOC Protests Too Much"

"Rep. Comer to Newsmax: No Evidence Biden Approved Autopen Use"

"Donald Trump Has Broken the Progressive Ratchet"

"America Must Slash Red Tape to Make Nuclear Power Great Again!!"

"Why the DemocRATZ Activist Class Couldn’t Celebrate the Cease-Fire They Demanded"

Antifa Calls for CIVIL WAR!

British Police Make an Arrest...of a White Child Fishing in the Thames

"Sanctuary" Horde ASSAULTS Chicago... ELITE Marines SMASH Illegals Without Mercy

Trump hosts roundtable on ANTIFA

What's happening in Britain. Is happening in Ireland. The whole of Western Europe.

"The One About the Illegal Immigrant School Superintendent"

CouldnÂ’t believe he let me pet him at the end (Rhino)

Cops Go HANDS ON For Speaking At Meeting!

POWERFUL: Charlie Kirk's final speech delivered in South Korea 9/6/25

2026 in Bible Prophecy

2.4 Billion exposed to excessive heat

🔴 LIVE CHICAGO PORTLAND ICE IMMIGRATION DETENTION CENTER 24/7 PROTEST 9/28/2025

Young Conservative Proves Leftist Protesters Wrong

England is on the Brink of Civil War!

Charlie Kirk Shocks Florida State University With The TRUTH

IRL Confronting Protesters Outside UN Trump Meeting

The UK Revolution Has Started... Brit's Want Their Country Back

Inside Paris Dangerous ANTIFA Riots

Rioters STORM Chicago ICE HQ... "Deportation Unit" SCRAPES Invaders Off The Sidewalk

She Decoded A Specific Part In The Bible

Muslim College Student DUMBFOUNDED as Charlie Kirk Lists The Facts About Hamas

Charlie Kirk EVISCERATES Black Students After They OPENLY Support “Anti-White Racism” HEATED DEBATE

"Trump Rips U.N. as Useless During General Assembly Address: ‘Empty Words’"

Charlie Kirk VS the Wokies at University of Tennessee

Charlie Kirk Takes on 3 Professors & a Teacher

British leftist student tells Charlie Kirk facts are unfair

The 2 Billion View Video: Charlie Kirk's Most Viewed Clips of 2024

Antifa is now officially a terrorist organization.

The Greatness of Charlie Kirk: An Eyewitness Account of His Life and Martyrdom

Charlie Kirk Takes on Army of Libs at California's UCR

DR. ALVEDA KING: REST IN PEACE CHARLIE KIRK

Steven Bonnell wants to murder Americans he disagrees with

What the fagots LGBTQ really means

I watched Charlie Kirk get assassinated. This is my experience.

Elon Musk Delivers Stunning Remarks At Historic UK March (Tommy Robinson)


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: Wisconsin Moves to Be First State Ever to Nullify Federal Cannabis Prohibition Through Legislation
Source: Free
URL Source: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/wi ... -federal-cannabis-prohibition/
Published: Sep 5, 2017
Author: Jay Syrmopoulos
Post Date: 2017-09-06 09:34:14 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 5937
Comments: 27

Madison, WI – Yet another state is moving towards legalizing cannabis for medical and recreational use. However, Wisconsin is going about it in a most Constitutional way. The state of Wisconsin introduced a bill last week that would effectively nullify the federal prohibition of marijuana in the state.

According to the 10th Amendment Center:

“Rep. Melissa Sargent (D-Madison) and 17 co-sponsors introduced Assembly Bill 482 (AB482) on Aug. 24. The legislation would legalize marijuana under a tax-and-regulate system enforced at the state level similar to alcohol. Under the proposed law, a Wisconsin resident who is at least 21 could legally possess no more than two ounces of marijuana and a nonresident of Wisconsin who is at least 21 could possess no more than one-quarter ounce of marijuana. The legislation would also create a licensing structure for the cultivation, processing and sale of marijuana. Additionally, the bill would create a process for medical marijuana use.”

“This bill is so much more than legalizing marijuana—it’s about legalizing opportunity and prosperity,” Rep. Sargent said. “The state budget was due two weeks ago, and Wisconsin simply can’t afford to wait any longer. We deserve a real plan to create new jobs and stimulate our lagging economy, and that’s what this bill is.”

If successful, the legislation would make Wisconsin the first state to legalize cannabis through a state legislative process, as every other state has utilized a ballot initiative to effectively nullify the federal prohibition.

State nullification of federal marijuana prohibition is completely constitutional, with the feds having little, if any, recourse to stop the process. Despite the federal contention that the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) gives the federal government authority to completely prohibit cannabis within a state’s borders, one need only ask themselves why a constitutional amendment was necessary to enact a nationwide prohibition on alcohol to clearly see the flimsy basis on which the federal prohibition of cannabis stands.

While federal prohibition would remain on the books, the passage of AB482 would remove the vast majority of laws prohibiting the use and possession of marijuana under which people are prosecuted by law enforcement in Wisconsin.

The reality is that law enforcement in Wisconsin makes approximately 99 of 100 marijuana arrests under state, not federal law, according to FBI statistics. By choosing to end the state prohibition of cannabis, Wisconsin can effectively eliminate the basis for 99 percent of arrests for cannabis.

It’s clear the federal government lacks the resources to prohibit marijuana without the assistance of state governments. Figures indicate that it would take 40 percent of the DEA’s annual budget to simply investigate and raid the dispensaries in just the city of Los Angeles—a single city in just one state.

If this legislation passes, Wisconsin will become the latest of a growing number of states that have chosen to nullify marijuana prohibition. However, it would be the first state to legalize recreational marijuana through the state legislature rather than the ballot initiative process.

Colorado, Washington state, Oregon and Alaska were the first states to usurp the federal probation of cannabis for recreational use, only to be joined by California, Nevada, Maine and Massachusetts after successful ballot initiatives to legalize cannabis last year.

Additionally, a total of 29 states, the District of Columbia, Guam and Puerto Rico now allow for comprehensive public medical marijuana and cannabis programs, while recently approved efforts in 18 states allow use of “low THC, high cannabidiol (CBD)” products for medical reasons in limited situations or as a legal defense, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

With a majority of states now allowing cannabis for medical use as well, the federal government finds themselves in a position where they can no longer sustain the ability to enforce marijuana prohibition.

“The lesson here is pretty straight forward. When enough people say, ‘No!’ to the federal government, and enough states pass laws backing those people up, there’s not much the feds can do to shove their so-called laws, regulations or mandates down our throats,” Tenth Amendment Center founder and executive director Michael Boldin said.

Currently, AB482 is in the Assembly Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety. The legislation will need to pass by a majority vote before it can be considered by the full State Assembly.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 24.

#24. To: Deckard (#0)

Madison, WI – Yet another state is moving towards legalizing cannabis for medical and recreational use. However, Wisconsin is going about it in a most Constitutional way. The state of Wisconsin introduced a bill last week that would effectively nullify the federal prohibition of marijuana in the state.

There is no such thing as a State law that effectively nullifies a Federal law. No matter how many times it is repeated, it continues to be bullshit.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-15_d1oe.pdf

(Slip Opinion)

OCTOBER TERM, 2014 Syllabus

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

ARMSTRONG ET AL. v. EXCEPTIONAL CHILD CENTER, INC., ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No. 14–15.

Argued January 20, 2015—Decided March 31, 2015

Providers of “habilitation services” under Idaho’s Medicaid plan arereimbursed by the State’s Department of Health and Welfare. Sec­tion 30(A) of the Medicaid Act requires Idaho’s plan to “assure that payments are consistent with efficiency, economy, and quality ofcare” while “safeguard[ing] against unnecessary utilization of . . .care and services.” 42 U. S. C. §1396a(a)(30)(A). Respondents, pro­viders of habilitation services, sued petitioners, Idaho Health andWelfare Department officials, claiming that Idaho reimbursed themat rates lower than §30(A) permits, and seeking to enjoin petitioners to increase these rates. The District Court entered summary judg­ment for the providers. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, concluding thatthe Supremacy Clause gave the providers an implied right of action, and that they could sue under this implied right of action to seek an injunction requiring Idaho to comply with §30(a).

Held: The judgment is reversed.

567 Fed. Appx. 496, reversed.

JUSTICE SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part IV, concluding that the Supremacy Clause does not confer a private right of action, and that Medicaid providers cannot sue for an injunc­tion requiring compliance with §30(a). Pp. 3–10.

(a) The Supremacy Clause instructs courts to give federal law pri­ority when state and federal law clash. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 210.

[...]

At 3:

II

The Supremacy Clause, Art. VI, cl. 2, reads:

“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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

It is apparent that this Clause creates a rule of decision: Courts “shall” regard the “Constitution,” and all laws “made in Pursuance thereof,” as “the supreme Law of the Land.” They must not give effect to state laws that conflict with federal laws. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 210 (1824).

http://loc.heinonline.org/loc/Page?handle=hein.usreports/usrep22&id=9&collection=journals&index=usreportsloc#217

Gibbons v Ogden, 22 US 1, 209-11 (1824)

9 Wheat. 1, 6 L.Ed 29

United States Supreme Court

GIBBONS v. OGDEN, (1824)

No. 43

Decided: March 2, 1824

[...]

At 209-211

Since, however, in exercising the power of regulating their own purely internal affairs, whether

[22 U.S. 210]

of trading or police, the States may sometimes enact laws, the validity of which depends on their interfering with, and being contrary to, an act of Congress passed in pursuance of the constitution, the Court will enter upon the inquiry, whether the laws of New-York, as expounded by the highest tribunal of that State, have, in their application to this case, come into collision with an act of Congress, and deprived a citizen of a right to which that act entitles him. Should this collision exist, it will be immaterial whether those laws were passed in virtue of a concurrent power ‘to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States,’ or, in virtue of a power to regulate their domestic trade and police. In one case and the other, the acts of New-York must yield to the law of Congress; and the decision sustaining the privilege they confer, against a right given by a law of the Union, must be erroneous.

This opinion has been frequently expressed in this Court, and is founded, as well on the nature of the government as on the words of the constitution. In argument, however, it has been contended, that if a law passed by a State, in the exercise of its acknowledged sovereignty, comes into conflict with a law passed by Congress in pursuance of the constitution, they affect the subject, and each other, like equal opposing powers.

But the framers of our constitution foresaw this state of things, and provided for it, by declaring the supremacy not only of itself, but of the laws made in pursuance of it. The nullity of any act,

[22 U.S. 211]

inconsistent with the constitution, is produced by the declaration, that the constitution is the supreme law. The appropriate application of that part of the clause which confers the same supremacy on laws and treaties, is to such acts of the State Legislatures as do not transcend their powers, but, though enacted in the execution of acknowledged State powers, interfere with, or are contrary to the laws of Congress, made in pursuance of the constitution, or some treaty made under the authority of the United States. In every such case, the act of Congress, or the treaty, is supreme; and the law of the State, though enacted in the exercise of powers not controverted, must yield to it.

http://loc.heinonline.org/loc/Page?handle=hein.usreports/usrep457&id=675#675

Edgar v. Mite Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 631 (23 June 1982)

Of course, a state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute; and

"[a] conflict will be found 'where compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility...,' Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U. S. 132, 142-143 (1963), or where the state 'law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.' Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52, 67 (1941); Jones v. Rath Packing Co., [430 U. S. 519,] 526, 540-541 [(1977)].

Accord, De Canas v. Bica, 424 U. S. 351, 363 (1976)." Ray v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 435 U. S. 151, 158 (1978).

nolu chan  posted on  2017-09-06   16:42:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 24.

#26. To: nolu chan, Deckard (#24)

There is no such thing as a State law that effectively nullifies a Federal law. No matter how many times it is repeated, it continues to be bullshit.

I grasp your point and agree, having said much the same.

Deckard is saying that it would take the vast majority of in-state prosecutions off the books and that the feds can't possibly take up the slack with their own enforcement and prosecutions. And he is probably right.

So, in the same sense that jury nullification doesn't actually repeal any laws but will sharply diminish enforcement and prosecutions, it could be said that taking state enforcement of federal laws off the books entirely does effectively nullify the impact of federal law in the state. The federal law isn't nullified by the state law but will have a huge impace on the vast numbers of arrests/prosecutions/convictions.

There's more than one way to skin a cat.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-06 19:26:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 24.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com