1 accepted medical use' at all." United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative
2 (2001) 532 U.S. 483[121 S. Ct. 1711, 1718, 149 L. Ed. 2d 722, 732] quoting 21 U.S.C.
3 §811. Accordingly, there is no medical necessity defense under the federal Controlled
4 Substances Act for marijuana. See United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers'
5 Cooperative (2001) 532 U.S. at p. 494, fn. 7. The Defendant is asking this court to order
6 the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department to assist him in violating federal law. This
7 idea is abhorrent to basic principles of law.
8 Furthermore, this course of action would be unconstitutional under the principles of
9 federalism and the supremacy clause as discussed in McCulloch v. Maryland. (1819) 17
10 U.S. 319, a seminal case dating to the fledgling years of our nation.
11 State institutions have no authority to impinge upon federal law in an area of
12 concurrent jurisdiction. Criminal prohibitions regarding narcotics are not in the realm of
13 exclusive federal jurisdiction; the several states and the federal government exercise
13 concurrent jurisdiction to independently regulate narcotics. However, this does not
15 empower a state court to order a state law enforcement agency to aid and abet a violation
16 of a federal criminal statute.
17 This situation, perhaps, is the reason that the Oath of Office for California state court
18 judges recognizes that California judges must uphold the federal and state constitutions:
19 I, _______________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the
20 State of California against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will
bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States
21 and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation
freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I
22 will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to
Oath of Office, State of California, County of San Bernardino
25 Furthermore, even if this Court were to order a sheriff's deputy to provide marijuana
26 and cultivation materials to the Defendant, the order would be unenforceable. Over one
27 hundred years ago, the Supreme Court of the United States addressed the issue of a state
People v. Canada, FMB006414; People's Opposition to Return of Property Motion.