Obama's Medical Marijuana Policy Issued

[seycyrus]

48 according to the Obameter:
[/URL]

Oh great, Politifact...

 

[Galteeth]

.

To be honest, I figured by now this was pretty much rule of thumb for federal investigators. Prior to this memo, I doubt too many would go out of their way to book someone on medicinal marijuana, let alone someone with a serious illness.

"side.
http://blogs.usdoj.gov/blog/archives/192

Bush specifically targeted marijuana. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jul/25/usa.richardluscombe

I recall reading that he actually specifically targeted medical producers, as he saw it as a gateway to legalization, but I will have to find the source for that.

EDIT: Found it.

"The Drug Enforcement Agency began raids in 2001 against patients using the drug and their caregivers in California, one of 11 states that legalized the use of marijuana for patients under a doctor's care. Among those arrested was Angel Raich, who has brain cancer, and Diane Monson, who grew cannabis in her garden to help alleviate chronic back pain."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/06/scotus.medical.marijuana/index.html

 

[Galteeth]

Please note that Bush was criticized (correctly) for doing the same thing: http://michaelthompson.org/liberty/index.php?o=20060724#20060724

These were cases of explicit restrictions (negative orders) by congress that were being ignored as oppossed to general directives (positive orders) that are arguably not being enforced.



By the way, this concept is related to the controversy ovr earmarking. Earmarks are specific directions for allocations of money. It was funny when people were on about banning earmarks, because it would have meant a dramatic expansion of executive power (the congress without earmarks could only appropriate funds to the execuive for general purposes, not give him specific directions.)

 

[mheslep]

I agree, and that's not what happened.I agree, and that's not what happened.What federal law makes it illegal to decline to prosecute drug users?

A II, S 3 has something to say on the matter.

The federal law makes one subject to prosecution, but does not require a prosecutor to prosecute it. This is true of laws in general, they allow but don't require prosecution.

There is indeed a requirement. The office requires that that care be taken to faithfully up hold the law. That noun and adjective are requirements, not options.

It is simply and obviously not a violation of any law for a prosecutor to decline to prosecute "individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses who use marijuana as part of a recommended treatment regimen".

The prosecutor can move various enforcements down the the to-do list and comply w/ the requirement, he can not remove it. Cancer or serious illness, from the constitutional perspective, is utterly irrelevant.

 

[Hepth]

For the rest, are you saying you interpret from the memo that prosecutions for this crime will still occur under this policy, just not as many? Or do you read in it that no prosecutions will occur? I read that no prosecutions will occur.

After reading the memo a fourth time, just to make sure, I STILL read it as priority guidelines. The fact that he makes it clear that:

Of course, no State can authorize violations of federal law, and the list of factors above is not intended to describe exhaustively when a federal prosecution may be warranted.

Indeed, this memorandum does not alter in any way the Department’s authority to enforce federal law

This guidance regarding resource allocation does not “legalize” marijuana or provide a legal defense to a violation of federal law, nor is it intended to create any privileges, benefits, or rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any individual, party or witness in any administrative, civil, or criminal matter.

Nor does clear and unambiguous compliance with state law or the absence of one or all of the above factors create a legal defense to a violation of the Controlled Substances Act. Rather, this memorandum is intended solely as a guide to the exercise of investigative and prosecutorial discretion.

ANY violation is to still be upheld, just discretion and priority are to follow guidelines.
Though:

Your offices should continue to review marijuana cases for prosecution on a case-by-case basis

 

[Biophreak]

Marijuana use has yet to be correlated to accidental deaths in ways that hard drugs such as cocaine, heroin, or methyl-amphetamines have. Furthermore, alcohol-related deaths, accidents, property damage, and rape significantly outweigh the problems that arise from even excessive marijuana use.

By legalizing marijuana safety measures will be put in place which will markedly lower the potential negative effects of marijuana use- namely cancers. Can anyone tell me if they use a filter on their bong or blunts? Because I certainly never have. State-regulated marijuana use will almost definitely require that marijuanarettes (i should trademark that ) have filters.

Also, state-regulated marijuana will have to meet certain criteria for potency. Imagine never having to worry if you dime sack was garbage, or being able to go to the store and purchase varying strength marijuana. That would be amazing, in my opinion.

For all the haters- I'm fairly certain that Obama isn't trying to pass legislation DEMANDING the use of marijuana. You will still be free to abstain in the way that you do for cigarettes. Marijuana drug enforcement wastes untold amounts of tax-money that could be more responsibly allocated to preventing adolescents from getting involved in the traditionally 'hard drugs'.

Furthermore, teens and college students who are nabbed for their generally innocent use of marijuana have had their lives drastically changed. I have in the past had friends kicked out of college for repeat offenses against the marijuana policy. I know people who now have permanent records for possession of weed and have to write down on their job applications that they have a record because of 'drug charges' These students who were doing nothing to bother anyone else, were denied their chance to complete college for something as simple as smoking a few spliffs here and there. Personally, when I was in college, I found the raucous caused by drunken idiots to be FAR more distracting to me than the occasional pleasant whiff of weed.

Quit hating and move on. It's just weed. (and please, for everyone's sake, don't turn my, 'it's just weed' comment into a slippery slope argument, because that's just retarded.)

 

[lurflurf]

I think you missed my point. My point is that most people are making an issue of medical marijuana because they want to get high, not because they really care that much about medicines. If pot had a lot of medical uses but didn't make people high, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The moralizing is a smokescreen.

I think you missed my point. It does not matter if some medical marijuana advocates also favor recreational marijuna use as they are separate issues to be judges on sperate merits. I am not convinced that "most" medical marijuana advocated want to get high, or that those that do are (dispite their vested interest) sincere in their support of medical use. Opponents of medical marijuna are at least as biased, many oppose recreational marijuna use. If recreational quemo therapy users existed they would likely favor quemo therapy being available to cancer patients, but they would not be wrong. Pot is illegal because (or under the pretext) that it makes people high. If pot did not make people high its opponents (likely fewer) would be using different arguments. The moralizing is a central issue.

 

[mheslep]

Marijuana use has yet to be correlated to accidental deaths in ways that hard drugs such as cocaine, heroin, or methyl-amphetamines ...

That post irrelevant to the tread (and inflammatory) - its about enforcement policy, not the merits of the Controlled Substance Act.

 

[Hepth]

But the problem is, America has a tough time changing things.

Really I see no difference between marijuana for medical use and opiates for medicinal use. You can't argue that prescription drug abuse isn't rampant in our society (opiate) and that you can always find doctors willing to prescribe it without an issue.
But the fact of the matter is, we know it's use is beneficial to SOME, and as a people we deem it enough of a benefit to overlook the crazy abuse of opiates.
I don't see the difference with marijuana other than the fact that it was used recreationally BEFORE becoming a prescription drug, whereas opiates, though widely used in other forms, weren't pill form yet.

According to the US Depts of Health and H.Services:
From surveys, in 2002 (old data) 6.2 million americans admitted to abusing prescription painkillers (opiates), while marijuana "abuses" of the same type are upwards of 30 million if I'm not mistaken.

While the number for marijuana is 5 times greater, the danger of its use is minimal compared to prescription painkillers.I guess my argument is, if we can over look a potentially fatal, highly addictive, easily accessible prescription medication as a result of its availability in medicinal use, then marijuana shouldn't pose much of a problem or raise much of an argument. That is, unless you have a personal feeling about marijuana in particular rather than the idea of drug use on a whole, which is obviously shortsighted.

Also, as a personal opinion, I hate when people try to justify an argument based on "If they do this, it just opens the door to that" which NEVER seems to be the case in this country. Every step in either direction is a giant struggle, which as often as not comes back and appeals the previous precedent.

 

[mheslep]

But the problem is, America has a tough time changing things...

Often, yes. Maybe that's bad sometimes. So?

 

[russ_watters]

I agree, and that's not what happened.

I agree, and that's not what happened.

Asserting it over and over again does not make it true. You need to provide a logical argument with citations.

The federal law makes one subject to prosecution, but does not require a prosecutor to prosecute it. This is true of laws in general, they allow but don't require prosecution.

Again, this is patently false and I gave you a citation from a legal textbook that agrees: the executive does not have the authority to decline to enforce the laws it has been charged with enforcing.

You are making this up as you go along. I've provided a citation: now I'm demanding one of you.

[edit] I have let you weasel too far away from this issue. Weaseling about whether this is partial or total deprioritization isn't really all that critical here: what he did was place state law above federal law. You agree that that's what he did, right? Do you believe the President is entitled to place state law above federal law?

 

[russ_watters]

That's pretty much how I view this.


Thank you for that link.

But this Obama fella sure is peculiar.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GUze-oYsswI&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GUze-oYsswI&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

He actually keeps campaign promises. I always thought there was a rule against that.

Well thank you very much! This says explicitly what I believed the memo implied! We have both dots, and I think it is perfectly logical to connect them: this was ordered by Obama in keeping with his campaign promise!

 

[russ_watters]

You are incorrect. The execution of law at the federal level is the responsibility of the executive. Barring a specific direction by congress, the manner in which the executive branch enforces laws is at the discretion of the executive in so long as he executes the laws faithfully. This is a a case of prioritizing enforcement. An analogous situation would be where congress declares a war. The president must execute the war, but the choice of targets and strategy are ulimately up to him.

You haven't read the entire thread, apparently. I discussed all of that and included a citation from a legal textbook confirming that the executive does not have the power to decline to enforce laws charged to it by Congress. He is not entitled to say 'that one's not worth my time to enforce'.

 

[Hepth]

Often, yes. Maybe that's bad sometimes. So?

I mean that, for those who were complaining that this is a "first step" for making marijuana as available as tylenol, that it is a huge leap in terms of freedoms where every step will be hindered by those opposing change in any direction. Just look at gay marriage, it seems to be a one step forward, two staps back dance. The same will happen with this, allowing for plenty of time for the public (aka lobbyists and congressmen) to decide what will and will not be allowed. Nothing is EVER a floodgate, where once opened everything is changed completely and to the extreme.

I was just using the trends of our government to null that argument.

 

[Hepth]

You haven't read the entire thread, apparently. I discussed all of that and included a citation from a legal textbook confirming that the executive does not have the power to decline to enforce laws charged to it by Congress. He is not entitled to say 'that one's not worth my time to enforce'.

But is he entitled to make a suggestion of priorities?

 

[russ_watters]

I responded to part of this before, but...

If you read the memo it comes across as more of a sheriff telling his deputy not to watch crosswalks for jaywalkers all day, but to rather work on higher priority crimes...

"Of course, no State can authorize violations of federal law, and the list of factors above is not intended to describe exhaustively when a federal prosecution may be warranted. "

Which is obvious he's not intending to NOT prosecute them...

EDIT:

For those that are arguing for or against what this memo said, without having actually, fully read it, please take the time to do so. Don't go on what the media is reporting from either side.
http://blogs.usdoj.gov/blog/archives/192

Thank you for posting the entire link. I see the quote you refer to in the memo. I also see this:

As a general matter, pursuit of these priorities should not focus federal resources in your States on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana.

So my question is, if this is really about prioritizing federal resources, why does it matter what state law says? Will a cancer patient in Pennsylvania be prosecuted because Pennsylvania doesn't have a medicinal marijuana law? That's how the memo reads. If cancer patients who smoke pot really aren't worthy of the attention of federal prosecutors, then it shouldn't matter that PA has no medicinal marijuana law - they shouldn't be prosecuted. Setting up the enforcement different in different states means that the federal government is applying the law differently in different states, ceding their responsibility to enforce federal law in situations where federal law conflicts with state law*. I believe we once had a civil war over that very issue.

The statements of general principle in the memo are at odds with the actual wording/intent of the policy.

*And why is this being done? It is being done because Obama doesn't agree with the Federal law regarding medicinal marijuana and is nullifying it by choosing not to enforce it where he thinks he can get away with it. Based on the Youtube quote with his answer to the question, I don't think there can be any question as to Obama's motivation here. He doesn't like the law, so he's nullifying it.

 

[russ_watters]

But is he entitled to make a suggestion of priorities?

I believe mhselp put it best: he is entitled to rearrange the list of priorities, but he's not allowed to remove anything from the list.

[separate post]

After reading the memo a fourth time, just to make sure, I STILL read it as priority guidelines.

Ok, you've responded to the parts of the memo that agree with your position: could you please respond to the parts that don't? Could you please respond to the quotes where it says "prioritization" means dropping an entire class of defendants in states where state law conflicts with federal law? I quoted it above, here it is again:

As a general matter, pursuit of these priorities should not focus federal resources in your States on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana.

Just to make sure we are both reading that the same way: do you agree that it says not to prosecute any violators of federal law where state law conflicts with federal law on the subject?

 

[Galteeth]

I responded to part of this before, but... Thank you for posting the entire link. I see the quote you refer to in the memo. I also see this: So my question is, if this is really about prioritizing federal resources, why does it matter what state law says? Will a cancer patient in Pennsylvania be prosecuted because Pennsylvania doesn't have a medicinal marijuana law? That's how the memo reads. If cancer patients who smoke pot really aren't worthy of the attention of federal prosecutors, then it shouldn't matter that PA has no medicinal marijuana law - they shouldn't be prosecuted. Setting up the enforcement different in different states means that the federal government is applying the law differently in different states, ceding their responsibility to enforce federal law in situations where federal law conflicts with state law*. I believe we once had a civil war over that very issue.

The statements of general principle in the memo are at odds with the actual wording/intent of the policy.

*And why is this being done? It is being done because Obama doesn't agree with the Federal law regarding medicinal marijuana and is nullifying it by choosing not to enforce it where he thinks he can get away with it. Based on the Youtube quote with his answer to the question, I don't think there can be any question as to Obama's motivation here. He doesn't like the law, so he's nullifying it.

In PA there are not large growing operations in the open.

 

[Hepth]

Just to make sure we are both reading that the same way: do you agree that it says not to prosecute any violators of federal law where state law conflicts with federal law on the subject?

Maybe I just read it different than you. From your quote, when I read:
"...pursuit of these priorities should not focus ..."

I read "should not focus" as "should not take a high percentage of time/manpower" not "should not pursue" or "ignore".

Isn't that how "focus" should be treated? I know this is semantics, but law is semantics. When I say "don't focus on this" I don't mean "ignore this", I mean, "don't devote a lot of thought to it".

This is why we have so many problems with interpretation of law, everyone reads it differently :)

Oh, and just to be clear, I'm trying not to cherrypick this memo for things that you say support "my position". I'm under the firm belief, as I think I stated earlier, that LAW is LAW and it applies today and should be enforced TODAY. I DEFINITELY think its ok to prosecute these people. I just think that either Obama, the deputy AG, or the AG has the right to make suggestions and prioritize the efforts of the federal drug wars.

People by now should know that medicinal marijuana, while approved by some states is still federally illegal, and they are choosing to violate that law, and thus should be prosecuted accordingly.

 

[lisab]

Maybe I just read it different than you. From your quote, when I read:
"...pursuit of these priorities should not focus ..."

I read "should not focus" as "should not take a high percentage of time/manpower" not "should not pursue" or "ignore".

Isn't that how "focus" should be treated? I know this is semantics, but law is semantics. When I say "don't focus on this" I don't mean "ignore this", I mean, "don't devote a lot of thought to it".

This is why we have so many problems with interpretation of law, everyone reads it differently :)

Oh, and just to be clear, I'm trying not to cherrypick this memo for things that you say support "my position". I'm under the firm belief, as I think I stated earlier, that LAW is LAW and it applies today and should be enforced TODAY. I DEFINITELY think its ok to prosecute these people. I just think that either Obama, the deputy AG, or the AG has the right to make suggestions and prioritize the efforts of the federal drug wars.

People by now should know that medicinal marijuana, while approved by some states is still federally illegal, and they are choosing to violate that law, and thus should be prosecuted accordingly.

Good points, Hepth.

Law enforcement is not a black-or-white issue. There are judgments made at each level, straight down to the beat cop.

For example, everyone knows that the speed limit is not really the speed limit. Even the most law-and-order citizen would raise holy hell if he got a speeding ticket for being just 1 mph over the limit.

 

[Al68]

You need to provide a logical argument with citations. Again, this is patently false and I gave you a citation from a legal textbook that agrees: the executive does not have the authority to decline to enforce the laws it has been charged with enforcing.

"Unconstitutional" means violating the constitution, not some lawyer's opinion. The text you referenced is just someone's opinion. "Appeal to authority" is just a logical fallacy, not evidence. All you provided is evidence of the author's opinion, which I have no reason to be interested in. You just proved that someone agrees with you. Is that the standard for substantiating claims? Providing evidence that someone else agrees with the claim? That would explain a lot.

You are making this up as you go along. I've provided a citation: now I'm demanding one of you.

Demand or not, I will never use any source other than the U.S. Constitution itself for the purpose of determining if something violates it. Why would anyone capable of thinking for themselves?

Using the constitution as the sole source for determining what the constitution says is "making it up as I go along"? Seriously?

[edit] I have let you weasel too far away from this issue. Weaseling about whether this is partial or total deprioritization isn't really all that critical here:

Nice ad hominem attacks.

Do you believe the President is entitled to place state law above federal law?

The constitution determines whether federal law or state law has jurisdiction, not Obama. If federal law has jurisdiction, the President has the power to enforce it, and decide whether or not to prosecute any particular case. The concept of prosecutorial discretion is not a new one, and federal law simply does not require every violation to be prosecuted.

Why don't you cite the federal law that requires a federal prosecutor to prosecute someone for smoking marijuana?

 

[OmCheeto]

Good points, Hepth.

Law enforcement is not a black-or-white issue. There are judgments made at each level, straight down to the beat cop.

For example, everyone knows that the speed limit is not really the speed limit. Even the most law-and-order citizen would raise holy hell if he got a speeding ticket for being just 1 mph over the limit.

I was researching "legal precedent" the other day and ran across this quote:

Blackstone says, that a former decision is in general to be followed unless "manifestly absurd or unjust," and, in the latter case, it is declared when overruled not that the former sentence was bad law, but that it was not law.

Does anyone remember the 18th and (hic) 21st amendments to the Constitution?

When laws are just fads, who cares?

 

[mbrmbrg]

So my question is, if this is really about prioritizing federal resources, why does it matter what state law says? Will a cancer patient in Pennsylvania be prosecuted because Pennsylvania doesn't have a medicinal marijuana law? That's how the memo reads. If cancer patients who smoke pot really aren't worthy of the attention of federal prosecutors, then it shouldn't matter that PA has no medicinal marijuana law - they shouldn't be prosecuted. Setting up the enforcement different in different states means that the federal government is applying the law differently in different states, ceding their responsibility to enforce federal law in situations where federal law conflicts with state law. I believe we once had a civil war over that very issue.

The memo never actually says why going after medicinal marijuana users is not an efficient use of federal resources. However, it seems to imply that the main inefficiency is the inevitable argument with the state, rather than the tears of the ill.

And yes, stating that arguing with state laws in inefficient does seem to be sliding back toward the build-up to the civil war. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. The civil war was absolutely necessary, because slavery had to be ended. However, I am uncomfortable with the generalized outcome that the federal government (nearly?) always trumps the state government. The fewer people governed by governments, the easier it is for the government to actually reflect the will of the people. So yeah, I like the idea of giving more power to the state governments, even if some of the steps along the way are a little shady.

Also, Ogden clearly limits his directive to the very bottom of the supply chain: the (medicinal) user and his immediate supplier. According to Ogden, growers/large distributors should still be prosecuted if there's any reason to suspect that they're not 100% medicinal.

 

[mbrmbrg]

Rather off-topic, but FYI:

...The pill [Marinol] didn't work, but the brownies did. So was it a dosage issue or does the pill just not work for what it is supposed to do?

Different people react differently to Marinol. Some people can get slightly high on it; for others it has absolutely no effect, regardless of dosage.

 

[russ_watters]

The memo never actually says why going after medicinal marijuana users is not an efficient use of federal resources. However, it seems to imply that the main inefficiency is the inevitable argument with the state, rather than the tears of the ill.

Ahh, that's a good possibility. So is that a legally acceptable position for the federal government to take? I would think not!

And yes, stating that arguing with state laws in inefficient does seem to be sliding back toward the build-up to the civil war. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. The civil war was absolutely necessary, because slavery had to be ended.

Um - you're going backwards here. Or are you saying that medical pot is a big enough issue that we should be digressing toward civil war over it? Me, personally - I think once the issue of states rights was settled, the federal government shouldn't be allowing it to rear its head again. As I said before, this isn't just about pot to me. Once the federal government starts letting the states peck away, they are going to keep pecking away until they hit something big.

 

[turbo]

Me, personally - I think once the issue of states rights was settled, the federal government shouldn't be allowing it to rear its head again.

"States rights" has never been settled. I grew up in the 60's when the "states rights" argument was used to defend the suppression of civil rights, support the extension of "separate but equal" laws, and defend the imposition of poll taxes and "literacy requirements" to deny some groups the right to vote. Short memory? "States rights" has been a darling cause of bigots for decades. Now that some states want to ease regulations on the use of marijuana for medical conditions and allow same-sex marriage, the right demonizes "states rights" as if somehow the rational application of democracy in pursuit of the public good might cause our country to collapse into moral degeneracy.

 

[mbrmbrg]

Ahh, that's a good possibility. So is that a legally acceptable position for the federal government to take? I would think not!

I didn't say it was legally acceptable: I said that the issue addressed by the memo is wrangling with individual states.

Um - you're going backwards here. Or are you saying that medical pot is a big enough issue that we should be digressing toward civil war over it?

Nope, I was unclear. My reference to slavery was more of an aside, mulling that smashing states rights in the 1860's (and again in the 1960's, as Turbo pointed out) was absolutely necessary. However, that doesn't mean that I at all like the precedent of the federal government always trumping the state government.

Me, personally - I think once the issue of states rights was settled, the federal government shouldn't be allowing it to rear its head again. As I said before, this isn't just about pot to me. Once the federal government starts letting the states peck away, they are going to keep pecking away until they hit something big.

Aaaaahhh, but I like small governments, because they're theoretically more accountable to the people.

 

[Al68]

Me, personally - I think once the issue of states rights was settled, the federal government shouldn't be allowing it to rear its head again.

"States rights" has never been settled. I grew up in the 60's when the "states rights" argument was used to defend the suppression of civil rights, support the extension of "separate but equal" laws, and defend the imposition of poll taxes and "literacy requirements" to deny some groups the right to vote.

Of course the issue isn't settled in that sense, the issue settled is that the federal government has the legitimate authority to protect individual civil rights from infringements by a state, which is authorized by the constitution.

The issue of federalism, ie all undelegated powers reserved to the states, is only settled on paper (the constitution), not in practice. In practice, congress routinely exercises power it doesn't legitimately have, and the Supreme Court too often is too corrupt to stop it when they have the chance.

But "state rights" is an absurd phrase, since neither the federal government or any state has any "rights" according to the constitution, they have certain legitimate powers.

 

[russ_watters]

"States rights" has never been settled.

Yeah, it really has...

I grew up in the 60's when the "states rights" argument was used to defend the suppression of civil rights, support the extension of "separate but equal" laws, and defend the imposition of poll taxes and "literacy requirements" to deny some groups the right to vote. Short memory?

It was used - but not successfully! That's the point! It is not a legally viable position. When the federal government decided to get its act together and fix the civil rights problem, the "states rights" argument didn't prevent it.

"States rights" has been a darling cause of bigots for decades.

Centuries! I agree - it seems to me that most of the time when we see "states rights" based arguments, it is a smokescreen for a state wanting to do something they shouldn't - whether "states rights" existed or not. I mentioned in another thread that there are other recourses when the federal government does something it shouldn't, such as suing them (as CA has done in other cases). If the law is wrong (or the government is applying it wrong), they challenge the law. If the law is right, but the state still doesn't want to follow it, they argue "states rights" instead of actually addressing the "correctness" of the law.

 

[Al68]

If the law is right, but the state still doesn't want to follow it, they argue "states rights" instead of actually addressing the "correctness" of the law.

Can you give an example of this? I was under the impression that "states rights" normally referred to claims that a federal law was invalid ("not correct", "wrong") due to the tenth amendment.

The Supreme Court has overturned many laws based on that argument in recent years.

Does "states rights" refer to something else?