I agree Arnold probably doesn't have the balls. When it comes to standing up for the people he's already shown himself to be a paper tiger. But why shouldn't Feds be arrested when they violate state law? They're not above the law. If they argue they're just "doing their jobs" enforcing federal law, then state and local cops can say the same thing when they arrest them -- they're just "doing they're jobs" enforcing state and local law! If state and local governments need a pragmatic reason to take such a stand, they might want to consider the value of such actions as a bargaining chip in seeking to get the Feds to impose fewer unfunded mandates, give more deference to local law enforcement, etc.
The federal government's drug warriors don't want a confrontation with local authorities over medical cannabis. It would be a headache for them, and public opinion would be on the side of the locals. This could pose a threat to their ability to keep Congress in line on cannabis, and if they don't keep Congress in line their whole game starts to unravel. Just as with North Korea and nuclear weapons, the Feds would be prepared to give some ground to avoid what to them would be potentially "unthinkable" consequences.
The federal system was not supposed to make the federal government superior to the states. Each were supposed to take precedence in certain matters. I would like to see a state Supreme Court rule that the U.S. Supreme Court was outside its jurisdiction in Raich vs. Gonzalez, which it was. There was no interstate commerce involved in local marijuana use, and everybody knows their ruling relied on a tortured stretching of the commerce clause. As a federal court, SCOTUS has an inherent bias toward expanding federal authority, and state courts shouldn't let them get away with it at their own expense.
Love & Liberty,
<<< starchild >>>