When a state à ‚¬Ëœnullifies' a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or à ‚¬Ëœnon-effective,' within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as that state is concerned.
While the media of late tends to focus on the new crop of states resisting DC with legislation on firearms and health care, they almost always miss, or ignore, what I consider to be some of the greatest and most effective state resistance to federal power - marijuana activism.
According to our friends at NORML, there are now 13 states who are openly resisting federal laws on medical marijuana. And now my home state of California is on the verge of taking it to the next level - full legalization.
According to a report in the SF Chronicle yesterday:
Two prominent East Bay marijuana advocates got clearance from the state today to try to put a pot-legalization initiative on the November 2010 California ballot.
This isn't your run-of-the-mill "medical marijuana" bill - that's already legal in CA. If approved by voters, the bill would:
allow anyone over 21 to possess or grow marijuana for personal use. It would allow each local government to decide whether to tax and regulate marijuana sales.
Any honest person reading the Constitution through the intent and understanding of the founders would recognize that the federal government has no delegated power to be involved in the marijuana issue, in any way.
Keep in mind, though, that the federal courts (and the DEA), don't really care what the Constitution has to say about it. They've interpreted it in their own way, and have made it quite clear that they don't recognize state marijuana laws as "valid."
But, as we say here in California, thanks for your opinion, DC,we've got our own.
