The use of marijuana has remained on the balance with different states making it legal for both medical and recreational reasons. The medical aspect of marijuana has been subject to debate for several years as many under the American constitution. It remains critical to the understanding of users as well as potential businesspersons to follow the laws regarding the handling of marijuana laws. Given this, the federal legislation has always prohibited the use of marijuana with very few exemptions. There are often several challenges when it comes to licensure and legalization of marijuana. It has high potential for abuse has made the federal government very reluctant to commit fully to the legalization of marijuana. It is thus categorized under Schedule I drugs that cannot be trusted on hands of users. However, there remains the need for uniformity between state and federal laws governing the use of marijuana. It will help have a common ground for punishing offenders. However, despite the federal restrictions on the use, medical marijuana still enjoys protection if used according to the provisions that legalize it.
Question1.
If the President decided to shut down the sale of marijuana at the state level, Jan would not successfully challenge the decision in federal court. Despite the legality of cannabis under medical considerations in several states, it is still considered illegal substance under the federal laws. The federal government controls the use of marijuana through Controlled Substances Act that prohibits and confines usage and sale of cannabis to certain provisions of the law. Under the CSA, the substances have been placed under certain schedules. In this view, federal laws still regard marijuana as a substantively dangerous drug that does not provide any value medicinally. While every factor is held constant, the medical value of the marijuana is always not regarded as a defense for use if one is convicted of possession or use. The position of the federal government means that they can take action to shut down any retail activity involving marijuana. However, attempts to harmonize the laws regarding the sale of marijuana have made the federal government provide certain requirements are met to conform to the expected standards set by the federal laws. In this regard, the government cracking the whip on premises that follow the provided specifications will is acting illegally especially in Washington State where marijuana is legalized. According to the provided guidelines, the premises are not expected to sell to minors. Therefore, any business selling cannabis to minors would potentially to be banned from operating the business. There are also state guidelines on the sale of marijuana, and the state laws provide the standards of compliance with these laws. If the federal government decides to ignore the state laws and shuts down all the businesses, Jan could move to court and challenge such decision. Her business is in compliance with both state and federal requirements to operate the premise for selling marijuana. Whenever there is conflict of laws between the federal and state laws, the federal laws will always reign. It is because the state still has federal resources and the constitutional laws allow the federal government to act on any of its premises at will. Therefore, Jan would not go to the federal court with such an argument.
Question2
Contract clause does not bar Washington from banning the sale of marijuana. Under the contract clauses, parties on a contract often agree to certain critical issues and the resolution of disputes if any. Under the terms, every party negotiates favorable but agreeable terms that will be used in making such decisions like banning the sale. The state laws are subject to amendment and if the state decides to amend the laws to outlaw the sale of marijuana within its boundaries, it remain gets the powers to change any existing law. Besides, the state has the powers to invoke certain provisions of the contract clause if it considers it in contravention to the compliance laws. As a result, it can easily invoke the provisions and declare the sale of marijuana illegal by banning any legal activity regarding the substance. However, the reason must be compelling to warrant such action and mostly it has to be in violation of the compliance requirements.
Question 1
The agreements between different countries are always confined to the federal properties and territories. States are under the custodianship of state laws and as such are not compelled by treaties that they did not ratify. While the international treaties apply to citizens of a country, every state has its licensure standards and requirements. Using the treaty to preempt the state laws on licensure would be in contravention of the constitutional obligation that federal government has on state laws. It is critical to understand that terms of professional practice are not universal across the US. It is due to lack of harmonized practicing laws that leave the disparities between the states. Once there is a universal licensure law, it would be easy for the federal government to invoke provisions. However, the licensure remains under the jurisdiction of the state laws thus the treaties can hardly be used preempt state laws on licensure. Decisions and setting licensure requirements remains a preserve of the state governments and its legislative wing. Therefore, any authorization of licensure is subject to state laws and approval by state agencies. The federal laws are restrictively applicable in states. As Constitution provides, licensure is undertaken by state agencies. As a result, they have full authority over the issuance of professional licenses.
Question 2
While the US preserves the right for someone to be fairly tried, there are exceptions relating to security laws. Security remains a very big concern to every American and as asserted in the anti-terrorism laws, there are obvious enemies of America and those who pose a serious security threat to lives of many Americans. The American President enjoys certain extreme powers that include listing its targeted individuals if they are considered dangerous. The president’s legal team often prepares the memoranda to justify why the person should die. The President thus enjoys the assassination powers if the decision is equally certified by the Office of Legal Counsel citing that such a person should be subjected to death. The American security laws and requires that suspects should often be subjected to the due process to validate their innocence or guilt. It is, therefore, critical that every person suspected by the security agencies to be proponents of the enemy can be targeted for killing. Such killing is often be proved by the OLC lawyers as they would stipulate the justification for the assassination. Questions continue to be asked over the validity of the President’s action to authorize the killings of targeted individuals under the Orwellian accusations in which suspicion by the government is often equated to proof. The proof is always essential in determining the veracity of claims. However, such authorization is not bound to due process; they might be malicious and ill-motivated. The fact that the President accuses someone cannot be ground enough to justify killing without trial. However, non-citizens who pose a serious security threat on American can and should be killed. Such draconian acts are not supported by the rule of law. If the documents ever go public, the family can sue the President. However, the courts do not have the powers to pass a make decision over matters that are considered exclusively for the executive and the President to decide. As witnessed in the case filed against President Obama by Anwar al-Awlaki’s father. The court eventually threw the case citing its lack of powers to preside over such exclusive executive matters.
