[tpmoney]

> I can see why people were tempted to cut corners, especially given past tolerance…

Which is one of the reasons that the pre-trump executive orders that granted leniency and amnesty at times were all terrible terrible things to do. We really have a problem in this country where we've decided that the laws suck, but we don't want to do the hard part of changing the law, so we just decide to ignore it. Until at some point someone comes along and decides to enforce the law and now a whole bunch of people who were acting on the de facto state of the law now have to deal with the consequences of the de jure state of the law.

Immigration is a place we've done this a lot, but things like the status of marijuana across the country is also predicated on this sort of arbitrary non-enforcement of the law. Obviously the states are not obligated to enforce federal law, but the feds absolutely can. The feds could raid every marijuana dispensary in the country and take them all down with barely a hiccup, at least from a legality standpoint. Yet they don't because we have decided to arbitrarily not enforce the law, even if we haven't changed the law.

I had really hoped after Trump's first term, we would have seen a real awakening to the amount of things that are allowed only because we don't actually enforce the laws that are on the books, and a real push to both fix the laws and roll back the abuses of executive power like this. But we didn't seem to learn that lesson, and sadly it doesn't look like that lesson is going to be learned this time either.

[metadope]

> The feds could raid every marijuana dispensary in the country

This is not a realistic scenario, but does seem to present the argument, that Federal law and the power to enforce it is inherently and legally superior to individual State laws?

> fix the laws and roll back the abuses of executive power

Perhaps we could start with the federal law that made marijuana a Schedule One controlled substance: so that ordinary residents of responsible and responsive states would not have to rely on "arbitrary non-enforcement of the law" in order to get their smoke on.

Think about it! Every one of those citizen-puffers are in violation of federal law! Send in the troops!

The argument seems to be that federal laws overrule states', and that underlying idea justifies sending military forces into cities, because, you know, federal laws are being violated, everywhere, like, all the time, man.

Sheesh.

[tpmoney]

> This is not a realistic scenario, but does seem to present the argument, that Federal law and the power to enforce it is inherently and legally superior to individual State laws?

That's the current state of US law yes. That's why California needs explicit permission from the federal government to have more restrictive air quality laws than the federal standards. It's also quite literally baked into the constitution:

>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.

Subsequent rulings and case law have largely established that the states and their law enforcement agencies are not inherently bound to enforce federal law, but that is a very grey area with lots of edge cases, and can change substantially depending on the "incorporation" status of the underlying constitutional basis for the law. This is why the drinking age is controlled by highway funding rather than direct legislative imposition, but it's also why the feds can and will send the military in to ensure your schools are integrated. The interplay between the supremacy clause and the 9th and 10th amendments is a very complex part of the legal system but this has been the state of the country for a very long time.

> Perhaps we could start with the federal law that made marijuana a Schedule One controlled substance

You'll get no argument from me on this front. Especially since there is a federally legal synthetic form of THC that is actively prescribed by doctors for cancer patients. It's called Dronabinol and it's a Schedule III substance. Yes you're reading that right. Psychoactive THC can be obtained via prescription in the US from any pharmacy and that synthetic version is a lower control level than xanax. And all of this in the face of the fact that the plant source of the THC is a Schedule I substance which in theory is supposed to mean there is no known or accepted medical use for the substance. Which seems like a lie.

> The argument seems to be that federal laws overrule states', and that underlying idea justifies sending military forces into cities, because, you know, federal laws are being violated, everywhere, like, all the time, man.

It's not "the argument", it's the actual law of the land. The fact that the feds can't send in the military is that we explicitly disallow the use of military forces for domestic law enforcement. But that restriction doesn't apply to non-military federal LEOs and even with the military, it's a grey area (see aforementioned use of the National Guard to enforce racial integration). And it's one of the reasons why we should have been concerned about the ever expanding federal powers in general and executive powers LOOONG before Trump had ever considered running the first time. It's part of what makes "legislating" via the courts so dangerous, and what makes the impulse some people seem to have to respond to the Trump administration by way of things like court packing and other attempts to simultaneously empower the federal government without also empowering Trump a dangerous impulse.