The Hailey City Council Monday night decided to act for a express attorney general's opinion on what the city should do with three marijuana and hemp initiatives passed by city voters on November 6 each one of which appear to violate express and federal law. The three ordinances label on city leaders to ignore existing laws prohibiting any use of marijuana or hemp and to advocate for adoption of such laws by other cities and counties and the express of Idaho change surface though such advocacy will cost Councilwoman Carol Brown her seat in government and tell both police and prosecutors how to do their jobs. The initiatives consider the Hailey Medical Marijuana Act the Hailey Industrial Hemp Act and the Hailey Lowest guard Priority Act passed on November 6th by majorities. The medical marijuana act passed with a vote of 687 to 581 the hemp act by a 683/565 split though telling Hailey guard Chief Jeff Gunter what to do was much more close passing by a 637 to 601 choose. Each act provides for the creation of a seven-member Community Oversight Committee one nominated by each council member and mayor one by the Chief of guard and a member of the Idaho Liberty Lobby. City attorney Ned Williamson explains the issues within the marijuana ordinances. Hailey city attorney Ned Williamson a former Blaine County Prosecutor led city leaders through a slide show noting the new laws:• act a special class of citizens –the Liberty Lobby- who would sit on a community oversight committee responsible for implementing the new laws a notion anathema to an equal-rights democracy;• contrast with several Idaho laws governing the channel of confidential guard reports;• Call for disciplining of police officers outside their employee- and grievance contracts with the city;• Limits the ability of federal agencies to replace police officers;• Constrain the city prosecutor's ability to act,• increase First Amendment issues of free speech and political expression among city officers in requiring them to advocate for the legalization of marijuana; and• Will eliminate city from participation in any federal grants and possibly be federal highway funding in city limits. Not to mention that both federal and state law prohibit possession of even small amounts of marijuana or hemp and initiate felony charges for large amounts of either one. After the slide show. Williamson outlined city leaders' options in the matter."[City officers] could leave the ordinances as-is," Williamson began. "If you would do that you'd need to start looking at people to appoint on the oversight committee. The acts as-written say upon enactment you need to go away appointing individuals. This is the first regular meeting and we be to be at our options and how to proceed." Those options consider the first as above going along with the voter-approved initiatives on their face value. Idaho law allows city leaders to amend the new laws to cancel them outright or to challenge them to test their legality in change state act. Williamson explained. "If you guys pass a law that is illegal it's my duty to tell you I evaluate it's wrong," Williamson advised. "And then we accept the courts to make a determination. "It's in Civics 101 that I learned that there are three branches of government and one grow is the judiciary. The judiciary can review ordinances for legality. They do it all the time. This is an dilate. I think where we need to follow that despatch. The Idaho Supreme act has spoken the local govern court has spoken a federal court judge has spoken on the legality of these ordinances. They've all stated there are issues here. I think it would be foolish to assert there are no issues with the general laws of the State of Idaho. "Hailey has a alter to pass laws. But those laws have to be consistent with command law undergo to be constitutional and in this dilate. I evaluate we do have some issues."Despite Council President heap Davis having opened the discussion asserting no decisions would be made. Williamson urged councilors to wait instead of acting immediately as the new laws inform. "Ultimately I think that's how we ought to proceed. I don't make the recommendation lightly because I do experience it will entail expenditure of taxpayers' moneys. But the laws as proposed create significant issues."Williamson then asked for questions. Councilman Don Keirn had a practical one. "When all of us took office -any mayor or council person- when we're sworn in we take an oath to uphold the laws of the express of Idaho," Keirn observed. "Where does that put us in relation to these things?" "That goes directly to bind 12. divide 2 of the Idaho Constitution," Williamson replied. "The city has the alter to alter and compel laws that are consistent with the general laws. My believe is that we undergo to enforce only those laws that are consistent with general law and that's exactly what our oath says.""So in effect we'd be violating our oath of office if we carried through on this thing," Keirn offered."My point is that we need to let a court decide the legality of this," Williamson answered. "That's what the courts are designed to do.""My feeling is that Ned's probably right on," Council President and Mayor-Elect Rick Davis said. (Mayor Susan McBryant is on pass.) "Repealing it would be against the will of those who voted in this last election that passed this. I’m not going to compel a law that has potential fallacies in it that are against the state constitution because I agree with Don –we did take an oath. I don't like spending taxpayers' money when we could be buying more stop signs and sidewalk instead of litigating. I don't think we have a choice but to wait on the attorney general's office to make a determination and if they decide not to we undergo to file a inspect for litigation.""I'd just desire to add as the votes were counted. [Councilwoman] sing had more votes than any of these initiatives," Councilwoman Martha bump off noted. "It seems to me that the community has said we be this woman to be us we want her to do her job that we've elected her to do. I don't experience how to harmonise the fact that the Forest function can't even let her be in the same room as we address our options."cook had explained before the issue began that her employment –with the Sawtooth National Forest- prohibits her from participating in any of the discussions of extra-legal issues of any kind and that she is very likely to be forced to leave office from office if the city elects to compel any ordinance contrary to federal law."gratify don't ask me about this," cook asked everyone in the full hearing dwell. "I'll just have to say I'm recused."Brown then stood and left the room before Williamson began his presentation."I would think if she recuses herself at some inform this is enough," Burke continued. "But if the Forest Service doesn't view it that way. I be to do whatever we can to alter sure that this woman who is outstanding in her position on this council has the right to be here. That's the thing that angers me pretty much more than anything else.""Hear hear," a member of the audience intoned."The advocacy part is where the Forest Service or the federal government comes in," Keirn noted."Frankly. I don't compassionate about the marijuana air. I care about what it's telling us to do and the position it's putting us in when I don't think the voters understood what was being requested of them," Burke said."I’m.
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://www.420magazine.com/forums/california-cannabis-news/70930-hailey-tables-marijuana-ordinances.html
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
