Not at all.
Obama backed the Fed’s off states that wanted to legalize...marijuana.It was a ghastly use of the colloquial verb "to back off", which usually implies the subject willingly retreating, but in this case is used to mean that Obama forced those states to withdraw their efforts.Should read:
Obama backed the Feds off of states that wanted to legalize... marijuana.
Had it been a contraction, as you suggested, the sentence would have read, "Obama backed the Fed is off states that wanted to legalize... marijuana", which makes no sense.
Either the possessive "possesses" the memo or it doesn't. Can't have it both ways. The presence or absence of the indefinite article determines which way the sentence should read.
Sessions’ recently released a one-page memo ...should read:
Sessions recently released a one-page memo
OR
Sessions’ recently released one-page memo...
It is bad enough when folks misuse punctuation and grammar. That proper use can be thought by some to be incorrect shows just how poorly all that public education money has been spent.
Fortunately, I spent more than 40 years writing and editing in a publishing career, after having received a good public education and then paying for a private gradutate education, in case you were wondering.
A contraction of the word *federal* (Fed, which I consider lazy) in a possessive form, not the specific *is*. I should have been more clear.
Yes, it was poorly worded, but not apostrophe abusive. I also agree on the poor structure of the entire piece. Lousy construction and overuse of colloquialisms are rife in contemporary “news” reporting.
Nice to “speak” with you. Take special care.