AUGUSTA, Maine (July 21, 2015) – A Maine bill that drastically restricts the use of drones by state and local law enforcement, and serves to thwart one aspect of the federal surveillance state, became law earlier this month.Details
SALEM, Ore. (July 8, 2015) – On July 1, marijuana officially became legal in Oregon, effectively nullifying federal prohibition in practice in the Beaver State.
And even as the new law went into effect, Oregon Gov. Kate Brown signed another bill into law that will take Oregon’s effort to nullify in practice the federal the war on weed to the next level.Details
RALEIGH, N.C. (July 6, 2015) – Last week, Gov. Pat McCrory signed a measure into law effectively nullifying in practice some Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rules that prevent terminally ill patients from accessing experimental treatments.Details
This week, a new law takes effect in Arizona that serves as a model to help bring down Obamacare in the states.Details
JULY 1, 2015 – Patients faced with life-threatening illnesses have more treatment options open to them in Tennessee and Florida thanks to laws that go into effect today.Details
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (July 1, 2015) – Floridians woke up this morning with more robust privacy protections thanks to a statute limiting drone surveillance that went into effect at midnight.Details
New Connecticut Law in Effect July 1 Legalizes Hemp Farming: 1st Step to Nullify Federal Ban in Practice
HARTFORD, Conn. (June 30, 2015) Tomorrow, a new law takes effect removing the ban on industrial hemp farming in Connecticut, setting the stage to nullify in practice the federal prohibition on the same.Details
New Law: Connecticut Bill Authorizes Hemp Farming in Direct Defiance to Federal Prohibition on the Same
HARTFORD, Conn. (June 18, 2015) On Tuesday, a bill that would remove the ban on industrial hemp farming in the state, setting the stage to effectively nullify in practice the federal prohibition on the same, became law without a signature from the Governor.Details
Have you ever read an article that you were not sure what stance the author takes on the subject but presents both sides of the argument at once? I had the distinguished experience recently when I was reading the article titled “Sheriffs, State Lawmakers Push Back on Gun Control” on the Newsmax website (see: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Gun-Control-Pushback/2013/01/17/id/471825). It was a little confusing until I got about half way through it and read a quote by Sam Kamin.
Sam is a constitutional law professor at the University of Denver. One would think that if someone was a law professor that they would actually know and understand the law. Or in this case, a constitutional law professor – who should then know and understand the constitution. It is highly unfortunate when people like Sam misspeak about a subject. Their title gives them some credibility so people think what they say is true because they are supposedly an “expert”. But, when they make a mistake it is still a mistake.
The Supremacy Clause of Article VI, Clause 2 reads:
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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
Sam makes the comment that state legislatures can pass any laws they want but that the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes such actions unconstitutional. He further states that when there is a conflict between state and federal law, the federal government is supreme. Nothing could be farther from the truth. His blanket statement implies that the state laws are not necessary and state governments are not necessary because the federal government and its laws are supreme.Details