Ban on medical pot cases quickly lifted (L.A. Times - 3/6/09)

Scott,

  Thank you for your article in Friday's L.A. Times about the Los Angeles U.S. Attorney's quick about-face on medical cannabis and how he tried to prevent his memo from reaching the outside world (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-medpot7-2009mar07,0,5710770.story). However I think you made a common but important error in one key sentence, where you wrote that federal law "trumps those of the states." Obviously that is what the federal government would *like us* to believe. However, it is not what the Constitution says. The 10th Amendment to that document reserves all powers not specifically granted to the federal government -- such as the right to say what medicine people can use -- to the states or the people.

  The Feds do not get an exemption from following the Constitution just because the U.S. Supreme Court misinterprets what it says. SCOTUS is a FEDERAL court, whose members are appointed by FEDERAL officials. When it comes to adjudicating the balance of power between the state and federal governments, they are not a disinterested party! They have a built-in conflict of interest. Of course it is to be expected that they will tend to say federal law trumps state law. I want a second opinion -- or maybe 50 other opinions.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))