A Tale Of Two Issues Of "Federal Supremacy" - Reverse Civil Rights Movement Where Federal Law Enforcement Is Ignored

Executive Summary:

IF we are indeed a "nation of laws" then the proper method to obtain what you want in society is to change the law via the formal legislative process. This is the case with your desires to increase legal immigration, allowing more people in. Otherwise why have a US Customs enforcement at airports and seaports? This is the case with availability of drugs that you desire but which are presently illegal.

Instead of following this process we see that certain advocates who have a left-wing disposition choose to IGNORE the federal law and do their own thing. Since the law doesn't say what they want it to say - they do what they want and dare the law enforcement authorities to prosecute them. The jury of public opinion will never convict them.

When these leftist forces infiltrate the federal government they will ignore their own laws and then sue a state that has the audacity to actually ENFORCE the federal laws that the Feds are ignoring.

During the Civil Rights Movement states thumbed their noses at federal law and constitutional rights. The Federal government was forced to insert federal troops and law enforcement in order to enforce "federal supremacy".

Today we see the opposite. Federal laws are being blatantly ignored. As certain states cry foul and choose to enforce the federal laws - to the letter of the law those who know they have no leg to stand on will protest over a secondary impact and make a plea to the jury of public opinion. Since they can't argue that asking immigrants to carry their paper is illegal - it is federal law - the secondary attack that they make is that the enforcement of the law will lead to "Racial Profiling". Even the Federal government knew that this had no legal bearing and did not include this claim in their lawsuit against Arizona.

In my analysis those on the left who blatantly violate the law are equal offenders to those state officials who did the same 50 years ago.

(Preemptive Note: If you ask "Where are the Black people that are being murdered today as was the case in 1960?" I ask that you look around today and note those abundant "Civil Rights Violations" today that simply aren't labeled "Civil Rights Violations" while the favorable government regime is in power. This is because of the hue of the killer and the lack of political advantage in going after him.)

The Expanded Adoption Of Medical Marijuana By States - In Violation Of Federal Law

The Controlled Substances Act classifies cannabis as a Schedule I drug and defines it as a drug "with no accepted medical value in treatment". Despite its long history of use as a medication, cannabis is classified as a "new drug" and legal access is only possible through an Investigational New Drug Application (IND) issued by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

I have traveled to several states this year and have noted billboards openly advertising the availability of "Medical Marijuana".  I am presently in Michigan.  On I-75 there are several signs notifying "sick people" where to get their hit.

One thing I don't see is the Eric Holder lead justice department claiming "federal supremacy" against these obvious violations of federal law.  Recall last year when the DEA enforced federal law by raiding several medical marijuana dispensaries.  They were legal by local law but, none the less illegal by federal statute.

What did the Eric Holder Justice Department do after the protests from the jury of public opinion?

February 2009:  MSNBC -  Attorney General Eric Holder Confirms Suspension Of DEA Drug Raids

Holder confirms states to have final say on use of drug for pain control

If someone could find exactly where Mr Holder found these "states rights" to "have the final say" I would appreciate it. They don't. He has chosen to not enforce this element of "federal supremacy"

“What the president said during the campaign ... will be consistent with what we will be doing here in law enforcement,” he said. “What (Obama) said during the campaign ... is now American policy.”

Obama indicated during the presidential campaign that he supported the controlled use of marijuana for medical purposes, saying he saw no difference between medical marijuana and other pain-control drugs.

“My attitude is if the science and the doctors suggest that the best palliative care and the way to relieve pain and suffering is medical marijuana, then that’s something I’m open to,” Obama said in November 2007 at a campaign stop in Audubon, Iowa. “There’s no difference between that and morphine when it comes to just giving people relief from pain.”
White House spokesman Nick Shapiro hinted at the policy shift shortly after the California raids, telling The Washington Times that the dispensaries were legal in California and that the Obama administration’s stance was that “federal resources should not be used to circumvent state laws.”

How does the chief law enforcement officer and the man who is ultimately over the Food & Drug Administration unilaterally make such a policy without going through the formal process? Instead they ignore the law and thus the policy change has been executed.

Illegal Immigration - Ignore Federal Law But This Time Attack States That Enforce The Law

If this second case were not so much of a blatant point of hypocrisy from the initial position that I noted it would not be so burdensome to me.

Yesterday the Obama Administrations lawsuit against the State Of Arizona's choice to enforce the federal laws that had not been enforce drew first blood.  The federal judge agreed that the state had no right to enforce the federal mandate that all immigrants must carry their papers.

From NY Times article:

The law, which proponents and critics alike said was the broadest and strictest immigration measure in generations, would make the failure to carry immigration documents a crime and give the police broad power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally. Opponents have called it an open invitation for harassment and discrimination against Hispanics regardless of their citizenship status.

While police demands of documents are common on subways, highways and in public places in some countries, including France, Arizona is the first state to demand that immigrants meet federal requirements to carry identity documents legitimizing their presence on American soil.

One can detect the bias of a news outlet based on their willingness to deemphasize this FACT.
Instead they are forced to undercut the clear law by bringing in secondary concerns, namely claims of "racial profiling".

As we accept their manufactured concerns of "racial profiling" and ignore the law, once again we have a tacit policy enacted, just as the jury of public opinion desires. The Keystone cops in federal law enforcement choose to ignore their own laws and go after the state which is the gateway for the largest number of illegal aliens that flow into our nation. Where as the original Keystone cops were incompetent the Neo-Keystone cops are merely ideologically bigoted.