Selective Prosecution and the Michigan Marijuana Law....

An article appearing in the Grand Rapids Press on June 4 claims that the federal government is practicing "selective prosecution" against holders of Michigan Medical Marijuana cards.  This resulted in a number of postings by newly-minted supporters of States' Rights, arguing that the federal government has no business prosecuting these people in the first place, and calling on those of us who have long supported the precept of States' Rights to back their cause.  One individual went so far as to say that selective prosecution violates due process and the Equal Protection Clause, to which I replied:

No, it doesn't. Just as Michigan state laws include preeminence clauses that override local ordinances and laws, so do federal laws. Their prosecution of MM users is in line with those laws, and they aren't obligated to cut you ANY slack. 

 As I said before, this is what happens when you elect officials who interpret the Constitution as affording the fed the power to override the protections of States' Rights that were an integral part of the Bill of Rights any time it desires to do so. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments were included specifically to make these sorts of federal power grabs impossible, but the continued election of officials who choose to believe that the Commerce and "Necessary and Proper" clauses override those explicit protections has brought us to where we are today. 

 I almost have to laugh at all this. Many of you who are now angry with Obama because he isn't honoring his word about this voted for the man in the first place because he promised you all sorts of things that violate States' Rights - like Obamacare, for example. You can't pick and choose. You voted for officials who told you from the outset that their understanding of the Constitution gives them the right to do exactly what they are doing now. If you are going to be for States' Rights, then you have to be for States' Rights even when it doesn't necessarily benefit you. If you are going to vote for a man who believes that the Commerce and "Necessary and Proper" clauses give the federal government the right to override the explicit protections of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments at will, then you have no business complaining when that elected official actually does it. 

 You voted for him. Now it's up to you to see if you can change him. Good luck with that.

For the record, I don't believe in luck.  I felt it appropriate to wish them something I don't believe exists as they try to perform a task that I don't believe possible to achieve.  Both are fairy tales.