Was cannabis legal in the U.S. in 1969-1970? In 1969, Timothy Leary challenged the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 in Leary v. The United States. Leary claimed that the requirement to have a tax stamp to possess cannabis, while also requiring possession of the illegal cannabis to obtain the stamp, was self-incriminating and unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled in his favor on May 9, 1969. A year later, Congress enacted the Controlled Substance Act, and to this day they use the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to outlaw cannabis. The CSA was effective on October 27, 1970. Does this mean cannabis (and any other previously banned substance) was legal under federal law for 17 months between 1969 and 1970?
The only other Federal laws were the Narcotics Control Act of 1956 and the Boggs Act, which depended on the Marihuana Tax Act. There were labeling requirements under the Pure Food and Drug Act, and the Uniform State Narcotic Act set forth laws for states to adopt, if they wanted. Drug prohibition was left to the states in the event that they did not adopt the laws set forth by the acts above.
Here are the Washington state proclamations with legal force, for example this proclamation amending proclamation 20-05. The legal authority is the paragraph starying &quot;NOW, THEREFORE, I, Jay Inslee, Governor of the state of Washington&quot; and what follows is what is legally proclaimed, in this case the effect is to &quot;waive and suspend portions of Title 79 RCW that require in-person meetings&quot;, pertaining to Dep't. of Natural Resources. Here is 20-25, the original stay-home proclamation. It claims Chapters 38.08, 38.52 and 43.06 RCW as authority, and prohibit[s] all people in Washington State from leaving their homes or participating in social, spiritual and recreational gatherings of any kind regardless of the number of participants, and all non-essential businesses in Washington State from conducting business, within the limitations provided herein. 43.06.220 is the main hammer that the governor can wield. The powers granted by the legislature include: (1) The governor after proclaiming a state of emergency and prior to terminating such, may, in the area described by the proclamation issue an order prohibiting: (a) Any person being on the public streets, or in the public parks, or at any other public place during the hours declared by the governor to be a period of curfew; (b) Any number of persons, as designated by the governor, from assembling or gathering on the public streets, parks, or other open areas of this state, either public or private; (c) The manufacture, transfer, use, possession or transportation of a molotov cocktail or any other device, instrument or object designed to explode or produce uncontained combustion; (d) The transporting, possessing or using of gasoline, kerosene, or combustible, flammable, or explosive liquids or materials in a glass or uncapped container of any kind except in connection with the normal operation of motor vehicles, normal home use or legitimate commercial use; (e) The sale, purchase or dispensing of alcoholic beverages; (f) The sale, purchase or dispensing of other commodities or goods, as he or she reasonably believes should be prohibited to help preserve and maintain life, health, property or the public peace; (g) The use of certain streets, highways or public ways by the public; and (h) Such other activities as he or she reasonably believes should be prohibited to help preserve and maintain life, health, property or the public peace. One could argue that some order is not reasonable, and perhaps it would fail strict scrutiny, if anyone sued. At present, though, there is no legal order. There is a guidance, a statement of best practices. There may well be a formal proclamation on this topic, which would wrap this in the legalities of other official proclamations. It boils down to RCW 43.06.220(1)(h).
&quot;Could Maine pass a law making New Mexico corporations and LLCs legally nonexistent in Maine (and removing the corporate veil in cases where Maine courts have jurisdiction)?&quot; No. The full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution, and the dormant commerce clause doctrine of U.S. Constitutional law would both invalidate a Maine law to that effect. One might think that the privileges and immunities clause of Article IV, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution (as opposed to the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment) might also invalidate this law (e.g., it also prohibits residents of another state from obtaining occupational licenses in a state). But, this is not the case, because the U.S. Supreme Court held in Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168, 180 (1868), that corporations are not protected by the privileges and immunities clause. See generally, here. This doesn't mean that Maine couldn't regulate foreign corporations in some manner that doesn't unduly discriminate against out of state corporations. For example, most states require out of state corporations that do business in that state to pay a small fee and make a simple filing with the Secretary of State of that state authorizing them to do business in that state as a precondition to filing lawsuits or counterclaims seeking relief in their state's courts. But, this is far from a denial of the very existence of the out of state corporation and doesn't, for example, prohibit the out of state corporation from defending itself against suits brought against it in that state's courts. Likewise, it does not prohibit an out of state corporation from owning property or from affording limited liability protections to its owners.
The Act was enacted on August 2, 1937. Pub. 238, 75th Congress, 50 Stat. 551 It had an effective date of October 1, 1937, specified at Sec. 17: This Act shall take effect on the first day of the second month after the month during which it is enacted. As soon as a law defining a crime is in effect, you can be arrested for that crime. Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798) sets out the limits on ex post facto laws, as prohibited by clause 3 of Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution (&quot;No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed&quot;). A law is prohibited if it &quot;makes an action done before the passing of the law and which was innocent when done, criminal and punishes such action.&quot; Thus, the limit is a strict limit against retroactivity, but a law can become effective immediately. Justice Story, in In re Richardson et al. 2 Story, 571 (1843) wrote: [...] it appears to me, that in all cases of public laws, the very time of the approval constitutes, and should constitute, the guide as to the time, when the law is to have its effect [...] The legislature have it in their power to prescribe the very moment, in futuro, after the approval, when a law shall have effect.
Huge difference between a car and a house. For example, at least in Pennsylvania no warrant is required to search a vehicle on public roads. In other states there are so many easy pretexts that you practically have little protection from a full vehicle search (although the pretext will have to withstand strict scrutiny if evidence found in a search is used to charge you with a crime). Your house, on the other hand, still enjoys very strong fourth-amendment protections: One of my favorite U.S. Supreme Court cases on the subject is Florida v. Jardines, in which SCOTUS ruled that even approaching the front door with a drug-sniffing dog without a warrant constituted an illegal search. (The majority opinion is worth reading for its illumination of current law on this question.)
Yes or no, depending. The question is investigated in &quot;The Status of Pregnant Women and Fetuses in US Criminal Law&quot; (JAMA), which collects 23 opinion in US jurisdiction. In Reinesto v. Superior Court, 182 Ariz. 190 where the court ruled that the state cannot prosecute for child abuse a woman who uses heroin during pregnancy and thereafter gives birth to a heroin-addicted child. However, in Whitner v South Carolina, 492 SE 2d 777 the court did find the mother criminally liable for child abuse, based on prenatal drug use. The South Carolina case is the sole example of that type, in the study (published 2003). Charges range from child endangerment/abuse, illegal drug delivery to a minor, or fetal murder/manslaughter. The general finding is that since a fetus is not legally deemed to be a person (in those jurisdictions, at that time), where was no &quot;child abuse&quot;. South Carolina, on the other hand, reasoned, here and in prior cases, that We have no difficulty in concluding that a fetus having reached that period of prenatal maturity where it is capable of independent life apart from its mother is a person. A different study (&quot;Criminal Charges for Child Harm from Substance Use in Pregnancy&quot;, JAAPL) which included cases up to 2015, found a slightly different distribution but generally concludes that courts do not consider maternal drug use to be a legal question. That article also cites a web page which at the time is purported to say that 18 states allow civil child abuse proceedings. In Chenault v. Huie (Texas), the court found that Texas does not recognize a cause of action in tort for injuries to a child that result from the mother's negligent or grossly negligent conduct while she was pregnant with the child but according to the more current Guttmacher Institute study, about half of the states have such a civil cause of action.
No. Arizona tried passing a law that, among other things: criminalized failure to comply with federal alien registration requirements, criminalized working without being authorized to work in the United States, and authorized state officers to arrest aliens without a warrant if they had probable cause that the alien had committed a crime that made them deportable. All three provisions were struck down in Arizona v. United States. The federal government has &quot;occupied the field&quot; on most immigration issues. That means they've regulated it so extensively that there is zero room for states to act independently. One of Arizona's laws that was struck down exactly duplicated a federal criminal statute, but even that went too far by allowing the state to apply its own enforcement priorities and prosecute cases the federal government would not. If a state made it a crime to be unlawfully present (which is not a federal crime), that intrudes even further on the federal immigration scheme. This doesn't mean a state can't alert the federal government to people who are unlawfully present. It doesn't necessarily mean state officers can't arrest for federal immigration crimes: a previous Ninth Circuit decision held that Arizona officers could arrest for federal immigration crimes on the same basis that they could arrest for state crimes, and the Supreme Court in Arizona v. US explicitly didn't address the question. However, if state officers make an arrest for a federal crime, the federal government still gets to decide whether or not to prosecute. What you're asking about would remove that federal control, so it is preempted by federal law.
First off, a court in the United States does not care if the federal law was good policy or bad policy. Courts do not make those decisions. A court cannot strike down a law for being a stupid idea; it can only strike down the law for violating a more fundamental law (i.e. state and federal constitutions, including striking down state laws for going against federal laws). Courts are not in the business of evaluating whether marijuana is dangerous, because that determination was made by Congress. As long as the law itself does not violate the Constitution (and being stupid doesn't make it violate the Constitution), a court cannot strike it down. If a law is validly passed under the Constitution, a court likewise cannot decline to strike down a state law that contradicts it. Valid federal laws preempt state law. This is not seriously disputed by courts. The question before the court is whether or not the CSA forbids Colorado from involving itself in the marijuana business. This is a question about federal law. While the Supreme Court will make the ultimate decision themselves, the US government generally submits an amicus brief on just about every Supreme Court case involving federal laws, outlining its position. The purpose of the brief is to get more arguments, in order to provide more for the court to think about. It is not even a tiny bit unusual for non-parties to submit briefs, and it would be incredibly unusual for the US to not submit one here. The Supreme Court cannot do something like jury nullification*. That's not their role in the world. No Supreme Court decision can say "well, this is the law, and it's clear, but we don't like it and are doing it another way." Their duty is to apply the actual law, not what they want the law to be. What they can do, though, is stretch words and make arguments to fit what they think it should be. Often, in cases they don't want to handle, they end up finding some technical point to avoid setting broad precedent. But they don't get to simply not apply the law because they disagree. * Technically, if they do that, they can't be overturned; however, it's just something that is not done.