As I said: in the technical legal sense maybe.
But a group of 30M people decided that they want the right to do something, which is not against the constitution, and an official THEY elected said he is going to disregard that, for the purposes of enforcing a law outside of his jurisdiction.
Basically, he is enforcing the will of others on his own constituents.
Will it still be right when the attorney general wants to enforce UN law in supremacy over US law?
I thought a judge just ruled that state LEO can not enforce Federal laws? Or is it just the way they enforce the law?
Maybe the can pass a law that says that they can't investigate if they have weed, even if it is rather obvious, unless they arrest you for another crime first. Even then, all they can do is turn you over to Federal authorities and let them prosecute you if they so desire.
Should save Calis. courts and LEO a ton of money. It would probably stimulate the economy by bringing in a decent amount of Federal money too. If the state refuses to prosecute then the Feds must send down a whole lot more Federal officials to prosecute them on their dime. Hell, maybe they should make all drugs legal and let the Feds handle all of the drug cases in Cali. Think of the money saved from the courts, indigent defenders, prosecution, etc... Might even be able to supplement the local LEOs budget by charging them an assload when they require a local LEO to testify.
Facebook
Twitter