News
Having read Charles Wolf's (candidate for Eagle County sheriff) recent letter in this paper, I was concerned about his rather adamant legal analysis and quasi-scientific stance on the issue of medical marijuana. His view seems to be personal and judgmental.
Would this mindset affect his official performance in the executive branch of the government, the Sheriff's Office? If we subsume that the Legislature and the people of Colorado have confirmed a right in the people to grow, cultivate, market, sell and use this substance in Colorado under certain conditions and regulations, then an enforcement officer (sheriff, etc.) is duty-bound to respect and honor that conduct or activity, including the safekeeping of such individuals' rights of exercise, notwithstanding the sheriff's personal dislike in the matter. He is not in the game of pontificating, only enforcing.
Wolf cites the federal statute (as “mirrored” by the state statute) as the controlling authority for which he would enforce and prosecute. However, on the effect of such statutes, the people of Colorado have spoken and rather patently via Section 14 of Article XVIII of the Colorado Constitution.
Would Wolf deny those citizens of Colorado who avail themselves of their constitutional rights under this statute-based position upon either his personal enmity against the weed or opt to only adhere to the provisions of the federal statute that tags the substance as criminal?
In other words, will Wolf, if he is sheriff, make the judgmental call and enforce the federal statute, and thereby deny a state constitutional right to the very citizens that he is called upon to protect and safekeep?
He should be heard further on this inquiry.
Nothing can be more private or personal than one's state of health — like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — and the U.S. Constitution contains no expressed authority for the federal government to intrude upon, regulate or abrogate that right.
That said, the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution expressly reserves such authority to the states or to the people. In other words, the marijuana issue is within the purview of “state's rights.”
I would think that the better course for a Colorado sheriff to pursue in his enforcement activities would be to confer efficacy upon and adhere to the provisions of the state Constitution and its attendant statutes, and not to simply choose between the conflicting mandates of federal law and state constitutional rights, nor opt for the legal authority that best supports his personal persuasion in the matter.
In this, the Attorney General's Office has weighed in by not seeking federal enforcement when state's rights may be impacted.
When unbearable pain or suffering is visited upon any one of us, who would have the moral or legal authority to determine what rights we would have to alleviate such misery — the U.S. attorney, the Colorado district attorney, the sheriff of Eagle County or the people in concert under the Constitution of the state of Colorado?
Wolf should be chary of the choice he makes in this matter were he to become our next “enforcer”!
Fredric Butler
Eagle
Would this mindset affect his official performance in the executive branch of the government, the Sheriff's Office? If we subsume that the Legislature and the people of Colorado have confirmed a right in the people to grow, cultivate, market, sell and use this substance in Colorado under certain conditions and regulations, then an enforcement officer (sheriff, etc.) is duty-bound to respect and honor that conduct or activity, including the safekeeping of such individuals' rights of exercise, notwithstanding the sheriff's personal dislike in the matter. He is not in the game of pontificating, only enforcing.
Wolf cites the federal statute (as “mirrored” by the state statute) as the controlling authority for which he would enforce and prosecute. However, on the effect of such statutes, the people of Colorado have spoken and rather patently via Section 14 of Article XVIII of the Colorado Constitution.
Would Wolf deny those citizens of Colorado who avail themselves of their constitutional rights under this statute-based position upon either his personal enmity against the weed or opt to only adhere to the provisions of the federal statute that tags the substance as criminal?
In other words, will Wolf, if he is sheriff, make the judgmental call and enforce the federal statute, and thereby deny a state constitutional right to the very citizens that he is called upon to protect and safekeep?
He should be heard further on this inquiry.
Nothing can be more private or personal than one's state of health — like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — and the U.S. Constitution contains no expressed authority for the federal government to intrude upon, regulate or abrogate that right.
That said, the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution expressly reserves such authority to the states or to the people. In other words, the marijuana issue is within the purview of “state's rights.”
I would think that the better course for a Colorado sheriff to pursue in his enforcement activities would be to confer efficacy upon and adhere to the provisions of the state Constitution and its attendant statutes, and not to simply choose between the conflicting mandates of federal law and state constitutional rights, nor opt for the legal authority that best supports his personal persuasion in the matter.
In this, the Attorney General's Office has weighed in by not seeking federal enforcement when state's rights may be impacted.
When unbearable pain or suffering is visited upon any one of us, who would have the moral or legal authority to determine what rights we would have to alleviate such misery — the U.S. attorney, the Colorado district attorney, the sheriff of Eagle County or the people in concert under the Constitution of the state of Colorado?
Wolf should be chary of the choice he makes in this matter were he to become our next “enforcer”!
Fredric Butler
Eagle
