Federal vs State laws?

[Dave2002]

I found this on a TIME site - http://time.com/3194786/marijuana-re...wsletter-brief

with this quote: "There are 18 states that have decriminalized pot, 23 states with laws allowing access to medical marijuana, and two states — Colorado and Washington — that have legalized the drug for recreational purposes. Federal law still classifies marijuana as a drug on par with heroin, acid and ecstasy."

I realise that the USA has in some ways a significantly different legal system from the UK and Europe, but I didn't realise that there could be jurisdictions in which there would be a discrepancy like that between federal and state laws. Surely state laws should always be consistent with federal laws - or am I missing something? I can understand state laws being more restrictive, but not the other way round.

I thought I had some understanding of the US American system - but clearly not enough.

[P. G. Tipps]

Good solid point, DAVE2002 ... that does seem completely illogical.

Of course there is really no such thing as a UK legal system as the Scottish system is quite separate from that of England, Wales & Northern Ireland. Those of us old enough to remember can recollect the many young English couples eloping north of the border to marry when they were forbidden to do so in England!

However as there is no overarching Federal arrangement in place in the UK it would be false to make any real comparison with the American system?

[amateur51]

I found this on a TIME site - http://time.com/3194786/marijuana-re...wsletter-brief

with this quote: "There are 18 states that have decriminalized pot, 23 states with laws allowing access to medical marijuana, and two states — Colorado and Washington — that have legalized the drug for recreational purposes. Federal law still classifies marijuana as a drug on par with heroin, acid and ecstasy."

I realise that the USA has in some ways a significantly different legal system from the UK and Europe, but I didn't realise that there could be jurisdictions in which there would be a discrepancy like that between federal and state laws. Surely state laws should always be consistent with federal laws - or am I missing something? I can understand state laws being more restrictive, but not the other way round.

I thought I had some understanding of the US American system - but clearly not enough.

Oh you don't have to travel far to find similar instances - perplex yourself with the Age of Consent across the EU member states frinstance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe

Doubtless our bonobo member will be along in a mo' to tell us earth-shattering tales of straight bananas etc.

[ahinton]

Oh you don't have to travel far to find similar instances - perplex yourself with the Age of Consent across the EU member states frinstance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe

Doubtless our bonobo member will be along in a mo' to tell us earth-shattering tales of straight bananas etc.

...or curved vacuum cleaners...

[P. G. Tipps]

Dave's point is surely the apparent incompatibility of US Federal Law and some individual State Law on the issue of drugs.

As yet we do not have a Federal Europe (unfortunately, imv) so the issue of direct conflict does not arise.

So the fact that Holland has a more liberal drug policy than, say, the UK is unremarkable in comparison to the US situation.

[Pabmusic]

...I realise that the USA has in some ways a significantly different legal system from the UK and Europe, but I didn't realise that there could be jurisdictions in which there would be a discrepancy like that between federal and state laws. Surely state laws should always be consistent with federal laws - or am I missing something? I can understand state laws being more restrictive, but not the other way round.

I thought I had some understanding of the US American system - but clearly not enough.

The Founding Fathers were concerned that a federal system might severely limit states's rights. Therefore they ensured that the federal state's powers were limited (to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and a few other things). For instance, when Prohibition was adopted (as a federal law) in 1920 the Constitution was amended (18th amendment). When it was dropped in disgrace (1933) the Constitution had to be amended to repeal the 18th amendment (21st amendment).

There was no serious federal law enforcement until the 1930s, after Prohibition, and after Bonnie & Clyde had run rungs around the police of several states.

In all there have been just 27 amendments, the first 10 of which date from 1791 and form the Bill of Rights (no. 2 - right to bear arms, for instance). There has been a huge number of Supreme Court judgements, interpreting the Constitution. An infamous one was the Dred Scott case of 1856 which ruled that no blacks could be citizens, because they were:

"beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect".

To allow citizenship:

"would give to persons of the negro race...the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased...to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased...the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went".

When the 14th amendment (1868) made African-Americans citizens, individual states began to undermine it (often by imposing unrealistic tests - or perhaps by lynching them) so that the whole issue had to be addressed again in the 1950s and 60s (the Constitution was not amended, because the 14th Amendment still stood. I think this was all done by persuasion and by Supreme Court decisions such as Brown -v- Board of Education - ruling that the segregation of buses was unconstitutional).

You can see that Federal Law is limited. Most regulatory laws are enforced by individual states. Look at how varied the use of capital punishment is. It's a state decision, the Constitution only being invoked if it can be argued that a particular case amounts to cruel and unusual punishment (8th amendment). Hence, 18 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have abolished it (or, like New York - which infamously re-introduced it) cannot enforce it. (The new law was ruled unconstitutional under the Constitution of New York, but because having capital punishment is a state issue, the US Supreme Court cannot overturn the NY Supreme Court decision.) The U.S. Supreme Court did rule in 1972 that the way it was enforced (particularly the delays) was 'cruel and unusual punishment' under the Constitution. They overturned that decision in 1976, saying it's OK if various procedures are changed. Since then 36 states, the Federal jurisdiction and the military have carried out executions, but 19 of these have carried out fewer than 10 (most of these fewer than 3). Texas has carried out 515.

Bill Bryson writes how, when he was a boy, it was very common for people living near another state's border to cross and take advantage of (say) no tax on cigarettes, cheaper petrol, lower sales taxes and the like; but he does say there is not so much disparity now.

[amateur51]

The Founding Fathers were concerned that a federal system might severely limit states's rights. Therefore they ensured that the federal state's powers were limited (to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and a few other things). For instance, when Prohibition was adopted (as a federal law) in 1920 the Constitution was amended (18th amendment). When it was dropped in disgrace (1933) the Constitution had to be amended to repeal the 18th amendment (21st amendment).

There was no serious federal law enforcement until the 1930s, after Prohibition, and after Bonnie & Clyde had run rungs around the police of several states.

In all there have been just 27 amendments, the first 10 of which date from 1791 and form the Bill of Rights (no. 2 - right to bear arms, for instance). There has been a huge number of Supreme Court judgements, interpreting the Constitution. An infamous one was the Dred Scott case of 1856 which ruled that no blacks could be citizens, because they were:

"beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect".

To allow citizenship:

"would give to persons of the negro race...the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased...to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased...the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went".

When the 14th amendment (1868) made African-Americans citizens, individual states began to undermine it (often by imposing unrealistic tests - or perhaps by lynching them) so that the whole issue had to be addressed again in the 1950s and 60s (the Constitution was not amended, because the 14th Amendment still stood. I think this was all done by persuasion and by Supreme Court decisions such as Brown -v- Board of Education - ruling that the segregation of buses was unconstitutional).

You can see that Federal Law is limited. Most regulatory laws are enforced by individual states. Look at how varied the use of capital punishment is. It's a state decision, the Constitution only being invoked if it can be argued that a particular case amounts to cruel and unusual punishment (8th amendment). Hence, 18 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have abolished it (or, like New York - which infamously re-introduced it) cannot enforce it. (The new law was ruled unconstitutional under the Constitution of New York, but because having capital punishment is a state issue, the US Supreme Court cannot overturn the NY Supreme Court decision.) The U.S. Supreme Court did rule in 1972 that the way it was enforced (particularly the delays) was 'cruel and unusual punishment' under the Constitution. They overturned that decision in 1976, saying it's OK if various procedures are changed. Since then 36 states, the Federal jurisdiction and the military have carried out executions, but 19 of these have carried out fewer than 10 (most of these fewer than 3). Texas has carried out 515.

Bill Bryson writes how, when he was a boy, it was very common for people living near another state's border to cross and take advantage of (say) no tax on cigarettes, cheaper petrol, lower sales taxes and the like; but he does say there is not so much disparity now.

Thank you for this Pabs - all so long ago and yet so recently.

A similar situation (pace the bonobo) existed at one time in those parts of North Wales where certain counties were 'dry' but where it was possible to travel a short distance into England if one fancied an 'out of hours' snifter.

[P. G. Tipps]

Yes, I'm sure most of us are well aware that there are different laws in different US States just as in different countries/states in the UK and EU! The only issue here is Federal v. State law and Pab has highlighted some interesting historical examples.

Getting back to Dave's specific point re modern-day cannabis in the US, it appears that there is still huge conflict on matters of the drug's availability and use.

Here's an interesting court case example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

The latest situation seems to be that Federal enforcers will not target individual users in US States where 'medical' use of the drug is legal and will only go after 'traffickers' on the streets.

The American legal and political system does seem very unclear and confusing at times?

[amateur51]

Yes, I'm sure most of us are well aware that there are different laws in different US States just as in different countries/states in the UK and EU! The only issue here is Federal v. State law and Pab has highlighted some interesting historical examples.

Getting back to Dave's specific point re modern-day cannabis in the US, it appears that there is still huge conflict on matters of the drug's availability and use.

Here's an interesting court case example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

The latest situation seems to be that Federal enforcers will not target individual users in US States where 'medical' use of the drug is legal and will only go after 'traffickers' on the streets.

The American legal and political system does seem very unclear and confusing at times?

And the UK one does not?

[Dave2002]

Dave's point is surely the apparent incompatibility of US Federal Law and some individual State Law on the issue of drugs.

As yet we do not have a Federal Europe (unfortunately, imv) so the issue of direct conflict does not arise.

So the fact that Holland has a more liberal drug policy than, say, the UK is unremarkable in comparison to the US situation.

Partly, though not only specifically regarding drugs. To put things crudely, I imagined that federal laws would trump state laws, though as pointed out this could only happen regarding certain specific categories of behaviour. If there are federal laws which do not "trump" state laws, then what is the point of having them?

Drugs are the example here, but there may be other issues with similar relationships between state and federal laws.

Different laws in different countries in Europe, or even within the UK is not a great problem, as long as people realise that there are differences, since we don't have a federal system of laws which are binding on European states, or within the UK.

[amateur51]

Partly, though not only specifically regarding drugs. To put things crudely, I imagined that federal laws would trump state laws, though as pointed out this could only happen regarding certain specific categories of behaviour. If there are federal laws which do not "trump" state laws, then what is the point of having them?

Drugs are the example here, but there may be other issues with similar relationships between state and federal laws.

Different laws in different countries in Europe, or even within the UK is not a great problem, as long as people realise that there are differences, since we don't have a federal system of laws which are binding on European states, or within the UK.

All very well in theory, but what about in practice? Are there signs at borders saying "Although you are entering country X without passport control, we would point out the following disparities in our laws and yours, regarding ..."?

The EU feels like one country quite often, in spite of what the legal situation is.

[Dave2002]

All very well in theory, but what about in practice? Are there signs at borders saying "Although you are entering country X without passport control, we would point out the following disparities in our laws and yours, regarding ..."?

The EU feels like one country quite often, in spite of what the legal situation is.

In practice there are differences, even within the UK. At least for the time being some of us may go to Scotland, and have dealings there. The Scottish legal system is rather different from other parts of the UK. Of course, if you don't do anything wrong .....

Perhaps also you didn't follow Spiral - the French system is seemingly very different.

[amateur51]

In practice there are differences, even within the UK. At least for the time being some of us may go to Scotland, and have dealings there. The Scottish legal system is rather different from other parts of the UK. Of course, if you don't do anything wrong .....

Perhaps also you didn't follow Spiral - the French system is seemingly very different.

This has been my point all along, maybe as it's now coming from you our simian friend with give pause to reflect.

[Pabmusic]

Partly, though not only specifically regarding drugs. To put things crudely, I imagined that federal laws would trump state laws, though as pointed out this could only happen regarding certain specific categories of behaviour. If there are federal laws which do not "trump" state laws, then what is the point of having them?....

It really does depend on the constitution, but in general at federal level there would be less concern about micro-management and much more about whether any state law violates general principles. The Council of Europe is not a federation, but exactly the same principle applies. Each member state makes its own laws, but they must comply with the European Convention on Human Rights, which lists a series of general principles (I've posted the complete thing before).

[amateur51]

It really does depend on the constitution, but in general at federal level there would be less concern about micro-management and much more about whether any state law violates general principles. The Council of Europe is not a federation, but exactly the same principle applies. Each member state makes its own laws, but they must comply with the European Convention on Human Rights, which lists a series of general principles (I've posted the complete thing before).

Clear as crystal Pabs, many thanks.