No you can't be tried federally for breaking state law. You would be tried federally for breaking federal law. If, in fact, you also broke state law, that would be coincidental and both courts would have jurisdiction to prosecute.
That's not the correct meaning of the Supremacy clause. I'll let you google it yourself, but in short, no, anything illegal under state law is not automatically illegal under federal law. I have no doubt that breaking state MMJ laws would also coincide w/ breaking federal law, but this is a duplicitous statement to suggest you can be tried federally for breaking state law.
State law is adjudicated in state courts and federal law is adjudicated in federal court. Federal courts do not adjudicate state law but may adjudicate the constitutionality of state law. So no, my argument is not moot. Any yammering about state law has no relevance in federal court and is simply PR-related. Anyone being charged in Federal courts will be charged with breaking federal laws.
Pay attention. It's VERY VERY EXCEEDINGLY SIMPLE.
The idea isn't that they are prosecuting them
federally for breaking a
state law what I said VERY CLEARLY was as follows:
1. The federal government can prosecute them at ANY TIME
for breaking federal law. If you have broken the state law in this instance (and you are over a certain production level--
which is the case in all of these situations)--you have ALSO broken
federal law. That's just by definition.
IE, they are being prosecuted for
FEDERAL CRIMES.
2. The JUSTICE DEPARTMENT has decided NOT to prosecute where
state law is being followed. That is to say, that while the
have ALWAYS had federal cases against these people--they have chosen not to pursue them until state law has been breached. This doesn't mean they are "prosecuting infractions of state law" but rather that
the federal prosecutors are making their decisions about whom to prosecute (which is THEIR prerogative) BASED on state laws. The US Attorneys do NOT have to prosecute anyone they don't choose to--so even if a federal case is viable, he does NOT have to prosecute it.
In these instances the trigger, according to the JD, for allowing these cases to move forward is failure to follow state guidelines/laws. As I've said, they've offered this as a litmus test for who they will prosecute (because they very obviously are not prosecuting everyone, even though they VERY CLEARLY CAN--before you get back into this mental rut you're in, consider for a moment why it is that they haven't gone after ALL of the cases they have in front of them if they aren't using a different method to judge who will be prosecuted than "they broke federal law."
They aren't prosecuting state crimes in federal court, what they've done is kept cases out of federal court
when state law hasn't first been broken. This is not my assertion--it is THAT OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT.
This doesn't require any fancy legalese--please allow me to emphasize that--IT DOESN'T REQUIRE ANYTHING but the prerogative of prosecutors who have the ability to decide whom to prosecute.
So, to summarize, let's give an example situation here for illustration:
1. Guy/business is growing over 100 plants, or has a considerable amount of product (over limits to be classified as a federal crime).
2. The Justice department won't touch him if he follows state law (THEIR WORDS, NOT MINE).
3. He breaks state law according to the federal government (through their various surveillance/investigative techniques)
4. The federal government now brings a
federal case against the dude, judging him to have crossed their line in the sand.
I'm not saying it's right, I'm not saying it makes sense--but nevertheless it is WHAT IS HAPPENING.
There is no question about this.
The feds DID come in and throw their weight around and get lots of people to close up shop--but as it goes to prosecution, according to what they are saying they have DONE EXACTLY AS THEY SAID THEY WOULD.
Frankly, until some of these trials are underway--you have no logical recourse by which you can prove that is either happening or not happening (neither of us know until evidence is presented).
Could you end up being right and they're just prosecuting them without regard to state law? Sure.
However, that's not what they've said they are doing--and there isn't enough information out there yet to disprove that statement.
This is the last I'll be commenting on this particular facet of the debate--I've explained it any number of ways to you. It is not my responsibility to see that you understand and are aware of what has been said, what is legally possible, and what the implications of those two things together are.
Figure it out for yourself, I'm through trying to hold your hand.
Once and for all, the feds said they would essentially respect state laws--so long as they were being followed to the T. Presumably, and according to them, it was deemed that these laws WERE NOT being followed as such in several cases--opening the door for them to prosecute under the framework they set forth from the beginning.
Pro tip:
When the feds say they will do something, more often than not they do it. Or they at least feign having done it publicly. Time will tell which one ends up being the case here--but I can tell what hasn't happened. The feds have not said one thing and then obviously done another--not yet, at least.
We need to see what evidence they have before deciding whether they're bullshitting about leaving legal operations alone. There just isn't enough evidence out there to make a claim in either direction at this point.
