Difference between State Law and Federal Law - Research Paper Example

LAW VS FEDERAL LAW Introduction law is the rules, regulations, statutes and principles of law established by the authority in a given state to govern its people. The USA is comprised of fifty separate self-governed states that have their own constitutions, governing authorities and judicial systems. The sovereignty of these states which is granted under the federal constitution gives them immunity from interference from other bodies from outside. Federal laws govern all the people living in the fifty sovereign states of America because they are established by the federal governing authority which is formed when those states surrender their powers\sovereignty to the central governing authority. The U.S. federal constitution provides for federalism whereby all the fifty sovereign states form a federation which is the most superior organ. All the statutes of the USA are enshrined in the U.S. Code. The following are differences between state and federal; Federal law is established by both congress houses of the federal state of America and has to be signed by the president in order to become law whereas state laws are enacted by legislatures and signed by state governors. The US federal constitution which is the supreme law of the land provides for the superiority of the federal government. This makes rights enshrined in the constitution superior to state laws that tend to limit those rights. Federal courts will determine cases involving violation of the U.S. constitution by state laws. The federal and state laws have always operated parallel to each other. Some states in America have legalized the medical use of marijuana despite marijuana being an illegal substance under the federal laws of the USA. This paper takes an analytical approach on whether the states can continue to legalize marijuana while it remains an illegal substance under federal law. Legalization of Marijuana in the United States According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse database marijuana, also termed as cannabis is a product of the hemp plant’s flowers, leaves, stems and seeds which are mixed and ground. Marijuana is a drug commonly used for recreational and medicinal purposes. In recent years the controversy surrounding the use and legality of marijuana has made news headlines in the USA1. Some states have amended their laws to legalize the use of marijuana despite it being listed as an illegal substance under the federal law. The recreational use of marijuana for adults has been legalized in Oregon, Alaska, Washington and Colorado. (Merica 2014). This means that possessing, using, cultivating and selling marijuana is no longer a criminal offense in the above mentioned states. However, this is on condition that the drug shall only be used by persons above the legal age. According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy database states have enacted laws legalizing the use of marijuana for medical purposes in order to remove criminal responsibility. These laws differ from state to state. The states which have legalized marijuana/cannabis for medical use and the years those laws were passed are listed below;2 Washington state (1998) Oregon(1998) New jersey (2010) Washington D.C (2010) New Hampshire (2013) Rhode island (2007) New Mexico (2007) Vermont (2004) Alaska (1998) Colorado (2012) Arizona (2010) Connecticut (2012) Illinois (2013) California (1996) Hawaii (2000) Maine (1999) Delaware (2011) Massachusetts (2012) Nevada (2000) Michigan (2008) Montana (2004) Maryland (2003) The move to legalize marijuana has been surrounded by controversy because of the belief that it violates international instruments prohibiting the use of drugs. Although these states have legalized the use of the drug, mechanisms such as legal age and set amounts have been put in place to regulate the use of marijuana. Under federal law3 marijuana is considered an illegal substance. (NCSL database 2014) Conflict of laws: federal law vs. state law A conflict of laws is the difference between the laws governing separate jurisdictions in relation to a particular disputed case whose eventual outcome depends on which law will be used to determine it. When there is a conflict of laws, the issue at hand is the law to be applied in such situations. (Dicey 2000) Article six4 of the U.S. federal Constitution which is termed as the supremacy clause dictates that: “The constitution and the laws of the U.S. which shall be made in pursuance thereof ...shall be the supreme law of the land...anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.” Since this article declares to be superior, the U.S. federal laws will prevail over the fifty states in the event of a conflict between state and federal law. According to this article, the legislatures of the fifty sovereign should take into account the constitutional policies and statutes adopted by the central government before they enact their laws. In cases where there is a genuine conflict of the two laws, federal law will have the upper hand over the conflicting (which are null and void) state laws. (Hart 2014) Although marijuana has been legalized in some states, it is still considered as a controlled illegal substance (Controlled Substances Act) under federal laws. The Controlled Substances Act doesn’t acknowledge the recreational and medicinal purposes of the drug so the possession, cultivation and distribution 5of large amounts of marijuana is considered a criminal offense under federal laws. This is attributed to the fact that it is classified as one of the highly addictive substances which have the potential for abuse and no medicinal value under Schedule 1 drugs and substances. Gonzalez v Raich 6was a case brought before the Supreme Court of the USA concerning the use of marijuana. The state of California has legalized the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. The respondents were residents who were using marijuana for its medicinal value as recommended to them by a doctor. The federal Drug Enforcement Agency confiscated and destroyed the marijuana they found in the possession of the respondents. The respondent instituted proceedings against the federal government for acting ultra vires and unconstitutionally and wanted the enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act to be stopped in states that legalized the use of the drug. The court held that even though California had legalized marijuana, the federal Congress had the power to prohibit the use of the drug in that state under the federal law. The court reasoned that failure to regulate the use of the drug in all the fifty states would undermine the Controlled Substances Act. (Scarinci 2012) The court upheld the supremacy of federal law over state laws because the central government has the power to ban the use of the drug in states that have made it legal. It is important to note that in the Gonzalez v Raich decision the Supreme didn’t declare the laws 7legalizing the medical use of marijuana in California invalid or unconstitutional. The marijuana revolution has gained momentum in recent years. However, the federal congress has obstructed all efforts aimed at scrapping marijuana off the federal statutes (such as the Controlled Substances Act). In United States V Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative8 the petitioner had sought an injunction against the respondent on the distribution of marijuana. The respondent did not stop the distribution despite a preliminary injunction being in place. The respondent was found in contempt of the court orders and its premises were seized. On appeal, the intermediate appellate court directed the trial court to include the medicinal use of the drug as a defense in the injunction issued earlier. On further appeal to the Supreme Court, the court reversed the appellate court’s decision and ruled in favor of the petitioners that there was no acceptable exception 9to the Controlled Substances Act. (Epstein 2004) The decisions in the above mentioned cases have firmly established the fact that marijuana is still a prohibited substance under federal law. These decisions by the Supreme Court resulted in decade long controversies surrounding the supremacy battle between state and federal laws on which jurisdiction has the final say on the legality of marijuana. However, all through the years federal law has always won the supremacy war. According to the writer the medical use of the drug should not be prohibited under the federal law. However, the use of the drug for recreational purposes should be illegalized and completely abolished. Under the administration of Barrack Obama who is the current president of the federation of the fifty states of America, states can continue to legalize the medical use of marijuana despite the drug being illegal under federal law. According to abc NEWS database President Obama said that federal drug enforcement officials should not prioritize marijuana users and small scale farmers and distributors in those states that have legalized its recreational use because there is ‘big fish to catch.’ `Legalization of marijuana in some states does not violate international instruments. The different sovereign states of America are not signatories to the various international instruments prohibiting the use and abuse of drugs and substances. The central government which is a federation of all the fifty states is the only entity with the powers of being a signatory to those international instruments. The fact that the use and abuse of the drug is outlawed by federal law means that the central government is keen on fulfilling its obligations under those international instruments. The federal Congress has the powers and jurisdiction to vote against and overturn the laws legalizing the use of marijuana in those. However, the fact that the federal Congress has not at any given time overturned the laws legalizing the use of this drug has resulted in many debates which have left many questions open and unanswered. The legalization of the drug has some loopholes but this should not worry citizens because these loose ends can be tied through amendments to these laws. Although marijuana has been legalized for use by people who have attained the statutory majority age, there are fears that there is no guarantee that persons under the legal will not have access to it. There are unscrupulous dealers who can sell the drug to minors. Also the fact that the drug may be used for medical purposes for other medical conditions as deemed fit and recommended by medical practitioners leaves an opening for those unscrupulous physicians that have no regard for integrity, work ethics and morals to abuse its use. The writer opines that the sovereignty doctrine allows willing states to continue to legalize marijuana while it remains illegal under federal law on condition that those states ensure that they maintain the status quo. These states should work closely with the central government so as to ensure that the status quo is maintained by enacting and implementing strict regulatory measures such as issuance of cultivation of marijuana, the majority age and so forth to regulate the use of marijuana. This will reduce the chances of a clash between these laws. In conclusion, the conflict between state and federal laws will not come to an end anytime soon because the precedents set by the Supreme Court didn’t provide permanent solutions to this problem. Instead it created loopholes. References Dicey, Morris. Conflict of laws. London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2000. Print Epstein ,Lita. The complete idiot’s guide to the Supreme Court. USA: Penguin Group.2004.print. Gonzalez v Raich. “The Supreme Court’s stance on legalizing marijuana”. Web. 15 Nov 2012. Hart, Henry M. “The relations between state and federal law.”Columbia law review (1954): 489-542.print Merica Dan Oregon, Washington, D.C. legalize marijuana.web.5 Nov 2014 NCSL. State medical marijuana laws.web.13 Nov 2014. Pennington, Carolyn. “Legalizing medical marijuana-is recreational use next?”Web. 13 Nov 2014 Read More