Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,795
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 8:
Line 8: − +
United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Coop. (view source)
Revision as of 01:12, August 26, 2007
, 01:12, August 26, 2007moved cat
The concurring Justices in Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Coop. expressed another reservation about the majority decision. They worried about conflict between federal and state law concerning the alleged medical need for narcotics. 532 U.S. at 502. Several states have passed laws, typically by referendum, establishing a medical exemption for allegedly medical use of narcotics. But as the Court majority observed in rejecting this concern about federalism, "we are 'construing an Act of Congress, not drafting it.'" ''Id.'' at 495 (quoting ''United States v. Bailey'', 444 U.S. 394, 415 n.11 (1980)).
The concurring Justices in Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Coop. expressed another reservation about the majority decision. They worried about conflict between federal and state law concerning the alleged medical need for narcotics. 532 U.S. at 502. Several states have passed laws, typically by referendum, establishing a medical exemption for allegedly medical use of narcotics. But as the Court majority observed in rejecting this concern about federalism, "we are 'construing an Act of Congress, not drafting it.'" ''Id.'' at 495 (quoting ''United States v. Bailey'', 444 U.S. 394, 415 n.11 (1980)).
[[category:US Supreme Court Cases]]
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]