Calif Supreme Court: Workers can be fired for using med marijuana

AP via SFGate ^ | 1/24/8 | PAUL ELIAS, Associated Press Writer

[robertpaulsen]

"I can't imagine what basis you have for the idea that federal law trumps state law, except in areas where the federal Constitution explicitly grants the federal government power."

Same thing. Allow me to clarify: Constitutional federal law trumps state law. Better?

The federal drug laws have been found constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. Therefore they trump any state law to the contrary -- which the state medical marijuana laws are.

"Perhaps you could point out to me the section of the Constitution that explicitly grants the federal government the authority to regulate what citizens grow and ingest for use within state borders (yes, I am anticipating your "commerce clause" argument)."

Within the state borders? No, that's not the Commerce Clause power. The Commerce Clause only allows Congress to regulate commerce "among the several states", not in them.

But what if activity within the state interferes with Congress' interstate regulatory efforts? Is Congress powerless? The FAA, for example, has the power to regulate commerce (flights) between states. Have they no authority over a private pilot, flying completely within his state, but crossing into controlled airspace?

When the in-state activity has a substantial effect on Congress' interstate regulatory efforts, Congress may regulate that activity under the Necessary and Proper Clause. Without that power, there's no sense in having Congress regulate interstate commerce.

Million of individuals growing marijuana in state would render the regulation of interstate commerce of marijuana useless. Certainly you agree with that statement.

"If Schwarzenegger were a Constitutionalist, and he had balls, he would have the federal agents who conduct these raids arrested and hauled off to jail."

If the federal government had balls, it would charge Schwarzenegger and the other California legislators who passed the medical marijuana laws with sedition and lock them all up.

[TChris]

The end effect of the ruling is correct, but a correct ruling made through incorrect reasoning is still incorrect.

OK, I suppose you have something there. Still, it could have been worse, IMO.

[robertpaulsen]

"Thus the California Supreme Court should have judged this per California law; not Federal law."

I thought they did. The question to the state court was: Can a California employer fire an employee who tests positive for a drug which is illegal at the federal level?

The employee is free to smoke dope for his back pain -- just not while working for that company. Hey, people can't smoke legal cigarettes and work for some companies.

[Smogger]

However, this court seems to be of the opinion that there are restrictions on an empoyer's right to fire employees at will.

You can fire someone at will in California, but you may be exposing yourself to a wrongful termination suit or an EEOC investigation if you violate a state or Federal statute.

You can't fire someone because they're black. You can't fire someone because they reported some illegality that you performed to the proper authorities, etc.

[Smogger]

If the federal government had balls, it would charge Schwarzenegger and the other California legislators who passed the medical marijuana laws with sedition and lock them all up.

The voters passed California's medical marijuana laws.

[fr_freak]

Million of individuals growing marijuana in state would render the regulation of interstate commerce of marijuana useless. Certainly you agree with that statement.

Hell no, I don't agree with that. Using your reasoning, there are no limits on the power and reach of the federal government. The Constitution gives the feds the power to regulate interstate commerce. Growing and selling marijuana, or anything else, is not interstate commerce, period. Only if the growers tried to sell or ship the product outside the state would it be interstate, by definition.

With respect to the Supreme Court's upholding of federal drug laws, I would like to remind you that the Supreme Court does not make law. They interpret law, and those interpretations have occasionally been found to be flawed and overturned. Dred Scott and Plessey vs Ferguson are two examples. Roe vs. Wade is an example of a standing decision that has no concrete basis in the Constitution and is merely waiting for a Court of a different political persuasion to overturn it. A Supreme Court decision can only be cited to explain the current practical application of a law, not whether that application actually matches the letter and intent of a law, and I am saying that the original intent and language of the commerce clause is such that the federal government does not have the power to contradict a state law such as the medical marijuana law. There are Constitutional ways to rectify bad decisions by the SCOTUS, but first the people have to be aware and vigilant with regard to their rights and with regard to the limits of the federal government.

So, the point is that the US Constitution not only does not give the federal government authority to conduct raids on citizens of California who grow marijuana AND DON'T SELL IT OR SHIP IT OUTSIDE OF CALIFORNIA, but it explicitly forbids the federal government from assuming that power. It is up to us, the people, to recognize that fact and correct the problem.

[Redcloak]

Federal courts are for Federal law. California courts are for California law. (It’s that galling 10th Amendment again.)

[robertpaulsen]

"The voters passed California's medical marijuana laws."

They did not, nor are they allowed, to put them into law. The state legislature had the duty to reject the referendum as unconstitutional.

Do you support what one poster has called "mob rule" -- a simple majority writes the laws?

[robertpaulsen]

"Only if the growers tried to sell or ship the product outside the state would it be interstate, by definition."

So let's see. In your world, it's legal to grow and sell in State "A" and legal to grow and sell in State "B", but illegal for it to cross from State "A" to State "B". Do I understand you correctly?

This means the federal authorities would have to catch the shipment the exact instant it crosses a state line -- on either side it's legal. Yet you emphatically insist ("hell no") that your scheme will not render federal regulation useless.

You don't really expect people to believe you, do you?

Prior to Prohibition, alcohol was illegal in about half the states. At the request from the "dry" states, the federal government then passed the Webb-Kenyon Act making it illegal to ship alcohol from a legal state to an illegal state.

Take a wild guess and tell me if you think that worked.

"A Supreme Court decision can only be cited to explain the current practical application of a law, not whether that application actually matches the letter and intent of a law"

Ever since Marbury v Madison, that is correct.

"and I am saying that the original intent and language of the commerce clause is such that the federal government does not have the power to contradict a state law such as the medical marijuana law."

And what you're doing is different how than what what the U.S. Supreme Court is doing? Yet I should listen to you, but not the U.S. Supreme Court, because you know exactly what the Commerce Clause means.

"but it explicitly forbids the federal government from assuming that power."

No it does not. If individuals within a state, or the states themselves, can undermine and subvert federal interstate regulatory efforts, then what's the point of giving Congress the power? The Necesary and Proper Clause applies to ALL federal powers, and gives Congress the authority to write laws which are both necessary and proper to allow them to do their constitutional duties.

[fr_freak]

So let's see. In your world, it's legal to grow and sell in State "A" and legal to grow and sell in State "B", but illegal for it to cross from State "A" to State "B". Do I understand you correctly?

Rarely if ever. In my world, State A can do whatever the hell it wants within the state, State B can do whatever the hell it wants within the state, and ONLY when state A and state B interact with these goods and/or services does the federal government have any jurisdiction. I really don't understand how your interpretation can be any different.

Prior to Prohibition, alcohol was illegal in about half the states. At the request from the "dry" states, the federal government then passed the Webb-Kenyon Act making it illegal to ship alcohol from a legal state to an illegal state.

Take a wild guess and tell me if you think that worked.

I don't care if it worked. Whether something works or not is not the proper test for whether it is constitutional. In fact, if anything, your example bolsters my point, because it demonstrates EXACTLY the circumstance wherein the federal government has the authority to pass such a law. The federal government did not try to pass a law prohibiting alcohol in all states. It merely made a law prohibiting the sale of alcohol across state lines. In order to prohibit alcohol in all states, it was recognized, in a much more Constitutionally-conscious time, that a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT was needed, and that is exactly what they did. They recognized the meaning of the Constitution in a way that seems to elude you.

If individuals within a state, or the states themselves, can undermine and subvert federal interstate regulatory efforts, then what's the point of giving Congress the power? The Necesary and Proper Clause applies to ALL federal powers, and gives Congress the authority to write laws which are both necessary and proper to allow them to do their constitutional duties.

Complete BS. Here is the "Necessary and Proper" clause:

Article 1, Section 8 states:

"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

This clause clearly says that the federal government can pass laws which are necessary to exercise THE POWERS GIVEN TO IT. If the federal government is not granted power in a particular area, then it cannot pass a law affecting that area. Nowhere does it say that the federal government can ignore the rest of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. The Constitutional limits on federal power still stand.

By your interpretation, the rest of the Constitution would be pointless, because this clause would grant the federal government unlimited power. If that were the intent of the Constitution's authors, they would simply have written the Constitution on a 2x2 inch slip of paper, and all it would have said is "The federal government can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants." Bah.

[Smogger]

Yawn.

You are ignorant of California law. The state legislature cannot reject or modify a California state proposition approved by the voters.

[robertpaulsen]

"The state legislature cannot reject or modify a California state proposition approved by the voters."

So if the voters approved a referendum bringing back slavery, the state legislature would be required to write the law.

I would think that at some point the U.S. Constitution would come into play. I guess I am ignorant of California law after all if they can get away with violating Article VI, Section 2.

[burzum]

Million of individuals growing marijuana in state would render the regulation of interstate commerce of marijuana useless. Certainly you agree with that statement.

Why then was a Constitutional Amendment required for Prohibition instead of a simple Public Law? Certainly the same logic applies.

[robertpaulsen]

"Why then was a Constitutional Amendment required for Prohibition instead of a simple Public Law? Certainly the same logic applies."

Well, if you can find something that says a constitutional amendment for Prohibition was required, I'd be very interested in reading it.

"An amendment to the Constitution obviously appealed to temperance reformers more than a federal statute banning liquor. A simple congressional majority could adopt a statute but, with the shift of a relatively few votes, could likewise topple one. Drys feared that an ordinary law would be in constant danger of being overturned owing to pressure from liquor industry interests or the growing population of liquor-using immigrants. A constitutional amendment, on the other hand, though more difficult to achieve, would be impervious to change. Their reform would not only have been adopted, the Anti-Saloon League reasoned, but would be protected from future human weakness and backsliding."

Thomas Jefferson prohibited liquor sales to the Indian tribes in 1802 without an amendment. His Secretary of State at the time was James Madison -- the man who wrote the U.S. Constitution. I think Madison would have informed Jefferson if he was acting unconstitutionally.

"Massachusetts colonial laws (1660 to 1672) restricted the sale of liquor to Indians. Pennsylvania and New Jersey passed similar laws. On January 28, 1802, president Thomas Jefferson asked the United States Congress for a prohibition of “ardent spirits” among Indians for the “benefit of Indians” and “to keep peace.” The Act of March 30, 1802 (Sec. 21, 2 Stat. 139, 146), gave authority to the president to “prevent or restrain the distributing of spirituous liquors among all or any of the said Indian tribes.”

[OCCASparky]

Air Force potheads? Say it ain't so! /sarc

Sorry Gary, your liberty doesn't extend to the workplace.

[OCCASparky]

The Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Section 2) of the U.S. Constitution says, in effect, that federal law trumps state law.

Found it, but the sticking point is:

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.

Looks like there may be an out for the potheads.

[OCCASparky]

The state legislature cannot reject or modify a California state proposition approved by the voters.

Explain Prop 187 then.

[robertpaulsen]

"any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Translation: No matter what the state constitution or state laws say.

[Mojave]

Well, if you can find something that says a constitutional amendment for Prohibition was required, I'd be very interested in reading it.

Me too.

[Mojave]

The state legislature cannot reject or modify a California state proposition approved by the voters.

But they have! The original proposition did NOT authorize sales. California's dope den marijuana "clinics" are a post-proposition modification added by leftist Democrats in the legislature.

Nose of the camel...