Direct Tv Case Study

The case study Gonzales v. Raich contributed to the debate of federalism in the United States, as well as the debate regarding the decriminalization of marijuana, even for a medical purpose. Surrounding the case study, groups of people either defended Raich and Monson stating that they were perfectly legal in their state, or defended the government stating that the federal law should override state law. The role of interest groups and political parties regarding Gonzales v. Raich is to take a side on the issue and allow the public to identify with one position or the other collectively.

The Supremacy Clause: Conflict between Federal and State Law as it relates to Medical Marijuana

In conclusion, the federal state should definitely have the power to make decisions on marijuana, abortion, and gay marriage. These are all things that fall under the umbrella of state law at the moment, but that should be changed. The varying states’ interests and laws keep peoples’ full rights out of their hands. In order to keep the United States’ promise of equal rights and protections under the law, the U.S. needs to take control of these three controversial

Recreational marijuana legalization in Colorado, Washington, Oregon, and Alaska have, technically, broken federal law. As long as the federal government does not do anything about the state’s blatant disregard for higher law they can do what they want. I think that because state and federal law contradict at the moment there should be clarification. States should only be able to pass a law such as this if it is also legal on a federal level, but if there are no repercussions for violating federal law where does it end? Recreational marijuana is a state issue, in my opinion. If it is to be legalized in America at a federal level then each state should be allowed to choose their side. At this point, federal government is showing its cracks. 4 of our states are currently not obeying the Constitution; federal law trumps state law. Our government needs to pull itself together and start paying attention to what the states are doing.

Understanding the difference between state and federal courts is important. First off, we know that this case is a matter of the federal courts for two main reasons; (1) the original offense of manufacturing marijuana is an offense against the laws of the United States, making it a federal crime and (2) by statute the district courts have original jurisdiction to try tort cases involving citizens who suffer damages caused by officers or agents of the federal government. Because agents of the federal government offended Mr. Kyllo’s constitutional right, this was indeed under federal jurisdiction. Therefore, this case is decided using federal substantive law.

In the Court’s highly fragmented decision, the justices attempted to define a proper balance of and boundary between federal and state authority: by arguing that state action constituted only those acts sanctioned by the state’s laws and by dismissing Section 20 for vagueness, the major block of dissenters suggested that the risk posed to state autonomy by federal intervention was too great; by recognizing the defendants’ actions as those perpetrated “under color of law” and by creating a “willful” test for acts under Section 20, the majority Opinion affirmed the federal government’s interest in protecting the rights of citizens from abuse by state authority, but provided it with a tenuous means for defending those liberties.

Marijuana is a drug that is an ongoing issue in the United States for many years debating about whether it should be legal, so in 2010 the state of California proposed the “Tax, Regulate, and Control Cannabis Act” for voters to vote on which would make marijuana illegal. Charles Stimson, a former assistant U.S. Attorney specializing in crime, had strong opinions about what he thought about the issue and was paid to write an article by the Heritage Foundation where he could voice his opinion about legalized marijuana. In his article “Legalizing Marijuana: Why Citizens Should Just Say No,” Charles Stimson tries to persuade his audience, voters of California, that they should vote against legalized marijuana. He tries to persuade his audience

Gonzales v. Raich was a landmark case which determined the extent that Congress could regulate marijuana usage in California. More precisely, the case involves deliberation between the constitutionality of the Compassionate Use Act, voted on by the state of California in 1996, and the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), passed by Congress in 1970. Does the CSA, a policy which permits the regulation of certain drugs and chemicals by the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), exceed the regulations set under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution? Does the Compassionate Use Act, which allows for the use of medical marijuana in California, protect citizen’s rights to use and distribute marijuana for medicinal purposes? The decision made by the Supreme Court would spark debate over these questions as well as similar topics such as federal abuse of power, doctor patient confidentiality, and the decriminalization of marijuana across America. In my paper, I will cover the events and influences leading up to the Supreme Court’s official decision, the significance of the outcome, and the questions and issues brought up in the aftermath of Gonzales v. Raich.

Ever since marijuana’s introduction to the United States of America in 1611, controversy of the use and legalization of the claimed-to-be Schedule I drug spread around the nation. While few selective states currently allow marijuana’s production and distribution, the remaining states still skepticize the harmlessness and usefulness of this particular drug; therefore, it remains illegal in the majority of the nation. The government officials and citizens of the opposing states believe the drug creates a threat to citizens due to its “overly-harmful” effects mentally and physically and offers no alternate purposes but creating troublesome addicts hazardous to society; however, they are rather misinformed about marijuana’s abilities. While

There are two legal issues related to this news article. Should the federal government simply decriminalize marijuana and does the current criminalization of marijuana hold any basis in ensuring public

The state of California Passed an act called the “Compassionate Use Act”. This act legalized the use of medical marijuana. When arrested the Defendants of the case were in compliance with all state laws and ordinances, but not in compliance with Drug Enforcement Administration laws. A lawsuit was filed against the Attorney General, by the defendants. The lawsuit stated that the congress had violated the interstate commerce clause by enforcing the actions of a local

In the Washington post article, “25 states now call marijuana “medicine.” Why doesn’t the DEA?”, by Christopher Ingraham, the journalist portrays the politically popular question over the legalization of marijuana through the eyes of Ohio’s recent legislation and the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) opinion. Ingraham begins by stating that John Kasich recently signed Ohio’s medical marijuana bill into law, while expressing that it is restrictive, in the sense that it does not allow users to smoke it. Therefore leaving them to eat or vaporize it. It also prohibits patients from growing marijuana and only limited conditions are able are to receive this form of treatment. Ingraham later continues to say that medical marijuana activist established

Hello Taylor, I think you did a good job with your post. Yes, you are right that this case was used to hid behind the federal law. I disagree with you about medical marijuana would not be look at differently today. I think today with more states passing the law to legalize medical marijuana the federal government will start letting the states handled situation like this. I think it is okay for a health care provider to use medical marijuana if he or she does not come to work under the influence.

The legalization of marijuana has been a debate in the public eye within the United States for quite some time now; however, as time progresses many states continue to pass legislation. As of, March 2017, 26 states and the District of Columbia have laws legalizing marijuana use in some fashion and 24 remaining states with pending legislation. Although states are in debate for legalization it remains that federal law still prohibits any form of usage, selling, or buying. Federal law supersedes state law on this issue as it is written, “Legalizing Marijuana: Why Citizens Should Just Say No” from the Legal Memorandum Published by the Heritage Foundation,

Let me know what you think of this pitch - target college newspapers in D2Y launch markets