[fr_freak]

Federal law trumps state law ... unless it’s a sanctuary city.

Actually, federal law only trumps state law in the areas where the federal Constitution grants such power to the federal government. There is nothing in the Constitution that grants the federal government the power to regulate a damn thing that occurs entirely within a state's jurisdiction, so, to sidestep those pesky Constitutional limitations on federal power, the SCOTUS decided that somehow the interstate commerce clause applies to marijuana usage and sale, even when that usage or growth/sale occurs only within California state boundaries, which most of it does.

That any person who calls himself a conservative, regardless of his feelings about Marijuana use, would not be alarmed by that usurpation of power is disturbing to me.

[guardian_of_liberty]

There is nothing in the Constitution that grants the federal government the power to regulate a damn thing that occurs entirely within a state's jurisdiction.

Exactly,but the States lost any say when we started the popular elections of Senators.

[TLI]

There is nothing in the Constitution that grants the federal government the power to regulate a damn thing that occurs entirely within a state's jurisdiction, so, to sidestep those pesky Constitutional limitations on federal power, the SCOTUS decided that somehow the interstate commerce clause

Ah yes, the almighty interstate commerce clause. The fed.gov “nose of the camel” A little something to attend to after getting the illegals out and disposing of the IRS.

[txzman]

Thank you for the clarification of state’s rights - a piece of education still lacking among too many.