Looking back at the discussion boards from the first 5 weeks of class, including my model answers, identify your three biggest takeaways. For each you should identify the concept, the location of the post, and an explanation of why this is important to you.
When responding to other's posts here, simply explain how one or more of their big takeaways would be important to you.
In Colorado, on December 10, 2012 it became legal for any individual age 21 or older to possess up to an ounce a marijuana for "any purpose." On January 1, 2014 it became legal for people to purchase marijuana from licensed retail outlets. In addition, while marijuana is still a federally prohibited substance, President Obama directed federal law enforcement agencies to refrain from enforcing the federal law in Colorado and other states that have legalized recreational marijuana. As a consequence, several new legal issues may arise, including the Trump administration's new Attorney General Jeff Sessions' prior public statements in opposition to legalized marijuana (it should be noted, as of June 9, 2017, there has been no directives from the Sessions' DOJ that rescind the Obama administration's positions).
Using your understanding of the concepts from Chapter 4, explain in as much detail as possible whether each of the following complaints would succeed or fail on Constitutional grounds. Do not rely on outside research for your original response.
1. The Attorneys General of Nebraska and Oklahoma argue that the Colorado law makes it easier for their state's residents and other state's residents who are traveling through their states to obtain marijuana which will increase their law enforcement costs. Therefore they petition the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the Colorado law.
2. The Attorney General of Florida argues that Colorado's law makes it a more attractive vacation destination, thereby harming Florida's commerical interests in violation of the Commerce Clause and demands the law be overturned.
3. The Colorado business association representing the marijuana industry spends several million dollars on public advertising and activities to get pro-legalization measures placed on several other state's ballots and to elect pro-legalization representatives to both state and federal office. A concerned citizens association in one of these states charges that the consequences of these ads and activities will endanger the public health and welfare of the state's residents and it asks the state court to prohibit these ads and activities.
The petition for overturning the Colorado law is going to be upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court on constitutional basis. The Supreme Court may nullify the law by terming it unconstitutional being an undue burden to the interstate commerce and business practices. By the dint of the dormant commerce clause the Supreme Court can nullify the Colorado law considering it to be an “undue burden” on interstate commerce (Mayer et al., n.d.). In
Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways, the Supreme Court declared Iowa’s prohibition on double trailers on its highways to be unconstitutional terming the prohibition as an undue burden on inter-state commerce and business practices (Mayer et al., n.d.). In this case too, the Colorado law has the potential to disrupt the economic balance of other adjoining states acting as an undue burden, and that is one primary reason why there are chances that the Supreme Court would upheld the petition and would rule in favour of the petitioners terming the Colorado law to be unconstitutional.
The Commerce Clause does not interfere with the economic growth and prosperity of states. Hence, if Colorado’s law makes the state more attractive vacation then such prosperity should be not be hindered as per the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution safeguards economic growth, development and prosperity of every states and the Federal government also takes care of this very fact. Hence, if the Attorney General of Florida argues that Colorado’s law makes it a more attractive vacation, he/she has no reason to ask the Court to overturn the law assuming that such a law would harm Florida’s commercial interest. The Supreme Court must remind the Attorney General of Florida that the “commerce clause is the basis on which the federal government regulate interstate economic activity” (Mayer et al., n.d.), and if the federal government has supported Colorado’s law then the Attorney General of Florida has no ground to challenge that particular law.
On the basis of the clauses mentioned in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a concerned citizens association of a state other than Colorado can appeal to the state court to prohibit the concerned ads and activities promoted by the Colorado business association representing marijuana industry. The citizens association can do so citing the First Amendment clause in which it is clearly mentioned that no corporation must use treasury money for independent expenditures to support or to oppose any candidate in any election procedure held for state offices (Mayer et al., n.d.). This clause makes it clear that the act committed by the Colorado business association in terms of electing pro-legalization representative to both state and federal office should be deemed unconstitutional. The First amendment also mentions that if a corporation has an independent fund designated solely for political purposes then it can make such expenditures (Mayer et al., n.d.), but as the Colorado business association has failed to declare or prove to have such independent fund meant for political expenditure, the citizens association can appeal to the state court to overturn the Colorado law.
(503 words)
References
Mayer, D., Warner, D.M., Siedel, G.J., & Lieberman, J.K. (n.d.).
Business Law and the Legal Environment.Retrieved June 13, 2017, from http://scholar.flatworldknowledge.com/books/6433/mayer_1.0-00about-chab/read