Summary: Last spring the Supreme Court asked for the administration's view on legal marijuana in the state of Colorado. The administration advised against involvement in disputes, because although the administration is committed against major traffickers of illegal substances,"federal resources should not be focused on individuals who were in "unambiguous compliance with existing state laws" and not involved in large-scale industrial marijuana cultivation centers." Recently, a case from Nebraska and Oklahoma against Colorado has been filled due to uncontrollable increases of marijuana across Colorado state borders into neighboring states. If Nebraska and Oklahoma were to win the case, pot would still be legal within Colorado, but its regulation on the market(how the substance is distributed and controlled) would have to change.
Questions: Solicitor General, Donald B. Verrilli argues that SCOTUS should not have accepted the case because it poses a "substantial and unwarranted expansion of this court's jurisdiction." What do you think he means by that? And do you agree with him?
Hypothetically, if Nebraska and Oklahoma were to win, what are possible solutions to the regulation problems?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/16/politics/supreme-court-marijuana-colorado-obama/index.html
I believe that he meant that with SCOTUS taking on this case they are attempting to control state's rights. It would be taking on Congress' duty of controlling interstate commerce instead of figuring out if the law in Colorado is unconstitutional or constitutional. I do agree with him. This is not a case for SCOTUS, but instead a case for either the U.S. Court of Appeals or the district courts. Some possible solutions would be stricter regulations about how much weed you can have on your person or possibly have some sort of control on the borders of these states.
ReplyDelete