Arizona Secession From The Union Could Be Reality Soon

[SickOfTheOnePct]

74. Pointing out incorrect information

isn't protective of anything but the truth.

As for a link, here you go:

On the first point, the nullifiers are correct: in a 1997 decision, Printz v. United States, the Supreme Court held that “the Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.” That case involved the Brady Act of 1993, which established a national system for background checks and commanded state law enforcement officials to conduct them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/04/opinion/the-limits-of-nullification.html?_r=0

So, states can't impede the federal government from enforcement, but the states themselves don't have to enforce them.

Under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, the CSA takes precedence over Colorado's state law if the two are in conflict as the plaintiffs argue. Colorado says weed is legal, but the CSA says it isn't. Open-and-shut case, right?

Actually, no. "The regulatory regime that Colorado has put in place is not preempted by the Controlled Substances Act," legal professor Sam Kamin, who was part of the task force implementing Colorado's marijuana laws, said in an interview. "I expect those claims to fail." The issue? The Controlled Substances Act dictates federal drug policy -- but it in no way compels states to enforce that policy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/03/11/after-losing-at-the-ballot-box-marijuana-opponents-make-a-hail-mary-pass-to-the-courts/

Federal agents can come into Colorado and enforce federal marijuana laws, but they can't force anyone in the state of Colorado to do it for them.