|
pabloescabar
Stranger thanyou


Registered: 05/02/07
Posts: 383
Last seen: 15 years, 2 months
|
HAILEY Idaho update
#8006146 - 02/10/08 07:34 PM (15 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
HAILEY OFFICIALS PLAN LAWSUIT TO FIGHT POT LAWS
Three plaintiffs come from city government By Cassidy Friedman Times-News writer The attorneys could have gone on arguing forever.
The issue of marijuana reform, which has been on the mind of Hailey city officials since voters passed three initiatives in November, did not go away when the attorney general and the Hailey city attorney struck down the measures.
The two attorneys determined that the three initiatives - including legalization of medicinal marijuana and industrial hemp, and making the enforcement of marijuana laws a lower police priority - violate federal and state laws.
City officials said they expect to see marijuana advocates present four new initiatives for a special election in February.
So on Tuesday evening, Mayor Rick Davis, Chief of Police Jeff Gunther and City Councilman Don Keirn decided to take the contentious issue before a judge - hoping a gavel will settle the matter. Whatever the judge decides, council members will obey, Keirn said.
"We kind of could see this as an ongoing thing," Keirn said. "They are either legal, in which case we in the city have to enforce them or they are illegal in which case we will ignore them."
The paradox is how to get there.
To get a district judge to hear the case, the three plaintiffs are suing Hailey - the city they represent - for passing illegal initiatives. The city attorney, who has argued the initiatives are largely illegal, will have to switch sides.
"As far as I am concerned, Civics 101, the Legislature can pass a law and the court can decide if that law is legal," said the Hailey City Attorney Ned Williamson. "It's the same process if people pass a law and let the judge decide if it's legal."
Williamson, as the city attorney, will represent the city and defend the initiatives. The plaintiffs will use city money to hire another attorney to argue the initiatives are illegal and should be struck down. A judge could also rule partially in favor of either side.
"I think what the goal here is to make a determination on all or part of the ordinances and if a judge determines some parts are illegal some parts will be stricken," he said. "This is a common technique used in court to test the legality of laws. It is called declaratory judgment."
Williamson's own advice and the advice he conveyed from the Idaho Attorney General's Office was to strip the initiatives down to their bare bones. That counsel infuriated the initiatives' author Ryan Davidson.
Williamson recommended City Council members cut out making medicinal marijuana legal and render impotent a committee charged with making marijuana Hailey police's lowest priority.
Keirn said Williamson has begun to identify potential attorneys to represent the plaintiffs. Keirn also said he did not know when the plaintiffs will file their lawsuit. Norml
--------------------
Edited by pabloescabar (02/10/08 10:29 PM)
|
justthatguy07
This is acomputer


Registered: 12/13/07
Posts: 194
Loc: In a van, down by the riv...
|
|
I dont understand the situations in Cali and other states with medi-pot, arent the states laws supposed to supercede federal laws?
-------------------- This message was automatically generated via a complex algorithm, the owner of this computer was never actually on this site and has no knowledge of these messages.
|
Alan Rockefeller
Mycologist


Registered: 03/10/07
Posts: 48,276
Last seen: 3 hours, 8 minutes
|
|
> I dont understand the situations in Cali and other states with medi-pot, arent the states laws supposed to supercede federal laws?
That depends on who you ask. Republicans generally say yes and democrats generally say no.
Unless the issue is drugs, then the republicans argue for federal power and the democrats are more likely to argue for states rights.
|
RasJah
Prince


Registered: 12/05/07
Posts: 60
Last seen: 15 years, 10 months
|
|
GO HAILEY!!!! That's great. While there is the supremacy clause, fuck that. States' rights are where it's at. Conservatives will preserve the right of a state to make and enforce their own laws, if not in conflict w/ federal laws. If states laws change, federal laws are next. hopefully. Push it, Idahoians!
|
pokermush
Waterboardingmyself toprotect America!


Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 475
Loc: Utah
Last seen: 15 years, 9 months
|
Re: HAILEY Idaho update [Re: RasJah]
#8008713 - 02/11/08 12:49 PM (15 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
This is horrible, should never happen in America.
The people voted, now the city is paying the bill to sue itself and have the peoples' vote overturned. To add insult to injury, the voters' interests will be (mis)represented by one of the chief opponents of the initiative.
That's about like learning that your assigned public defender also happens to be your arresting officer. Yup, you'll get a fair trial.
Under no circumstances should the city foot the plaintiff's bill for a legal challenge to a voter-passed initiative, and the city should shouldn't even consider this kind of faux defense. Where is the ACLU when you need them? (I think I hear crickets)
|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: HAILEY Idaho update [Re: pokermush]
#8011214 - 02/11/08 10:28 PM (15 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
this is stupid, but the article is worthless
what are the legal issues? doesn't say
in my state localities cannot adopt laws conflicting w/ teh state law.
But how is there a conflict if the initiative simply says no one will be prosecuted under city law for med. marijuana? Then the state can still press charges, but they must prosecute under state law.
And who gives a shit about the fed. law? Let those courts deal with it, but I fail to see how a federal law is violated by not prosecuting pot smokers. The law doesn't require states to prosecute them, it just makes marijuana illegal.
So what is the conflict?
This reeks of bullshit unspoken drug hysteria... or maybe there is a legitimate basis for the legal challenge and the reporter wrote a shitty article... but when's the last time you've heard of a city suing itself to injoin a law it likes?
|
|