In its amicus curiae brief Judicial Watch maintains that the AMMA, which permits the use of marijuana for medical purposes, is a direct violation of the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), making it unlawful to “manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense” any controlled substance:

“Federal law is unambiguous in that marijuana is a controlled substance regulated under a comprehensive statutory and regulatory scheme. As such, the production, sale, and use of marijuana, other than as part of a federally authorized research program, is a violation of federal law regardless of any state law permitting such activities even in a limited manner.”

Judicial Watch further argues that, the Superior Court ruling notwithstanding, the CSA preempts the AMMA under the “Supremacy Clause,” which makes federal laws “supreme” to contrary any state law. Citing the CSA provisions, Judicial Watch maintains:

“… where a ‘positive conflict’ exists between the CSA and a state law such that ‘the two cannot consistently stand together, the CSA ‘shall be construed’ as evidencing Congressional intent to ‘occupy the field’ in which the CSA provision operates ….”

In 2010, Arizona voters narrowly approved a ballot measure allowing people with certain debilitating medical conditions to use medical marijuana. Under the law, state health officials can license up to 126 dispensaries in designated areas. In June, 2012, the White Mountain Health Center sued Maricopa County for allegedly stalling approval of its zoning application to prevent it from seeking a state operating license for a dispensary. In December, 2004, the Maricopa Superior Court ruled in White Mountain’s favor.

In its amicus brief defending the Maricopa County appeal, Judicial Watch argues:

“Maricopa County cannot issue a zoning permit for a facility for the cultivation and dispensing of marijuana any more than it could issue a permit to establish a ‘meth lab’ or a print shop for counterfeit currency. Our federal system does not permit that.”

Judicial Watch, Inc.  has sued the United States Department of Treasury to uncover documents that may confirm suspicious connections between Obama campaign donors and why the Obama Administration approved a recent corporate takeover. The takeover required the approval of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS), which is chaired by the secretary of the Treasury and includes the attorney general, the U.S. trade representative, and the secretaries of the Department of Homeland Security, Commerce, Defense, State, and Energy.

The Chinese government-owned Chinese National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) acquired the Canadian energy company Nexen Inc. This acquisition, with the Obama Administration approval, will allow CNOOC access to drilling for oil in northern Canada and the Gulf of Mexico.  Because the oil industry is extremely profitable, the deal will provide a windfall of financial returns to major Obama campaign contributors.

• Taconic Capital, which reported in its third quarter filing that it had acquired 6 million shares of Nexen between July 1 and September 30, 2012.  Taconic’s founder and managing director is Frank Brosens, an Obama bundler who has raised more than $1 million for Obama.  Brosens was Timothy Geithner’s first choice to run the TARP (Troubled Assets Relief Program).

• Farallon Capital Management, LLC, which bought 8.7 million shares of Nexen (1.65 percent of the company) between July 1 and September 30, 2012.  The founder of Fallon Capital is Thomas Steyer, a long-time Democratic fundraiser who spoke at the Democratic National Convention.

• Eton Park Capital Management, which bought 6,737,000 shares (1.28 percent) of Nexen.  Eton Park was founded and is directed by Eric Mindich, a bundler who raised more than $71,000 for Obama this cycle and has given more than $500,000 to Democratic candidates since 1990.

• D.E. Shaw & Co., which increased its position by 5.8 million to 6.5 million shares, or 1.22 percent of the company.  D.E. Shaw was founded by David E. Shaw, an Obama bundler in the $200,000 to $500,000 range.  He also sits on the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, as he did under the Clinton administration.

Once our investigators ‘connected the dots’, we filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Department of Treasury for documents related to the approval of the takeover. You can read the FOIA request here.

Judicial Watch, Inc. has yet to receive any response and it is well beyond the federal deadline of 20 business days that forces agencies to respond to FOIA requests. Now, Judicial Watch has sued once again in the interest of integrity, transparency, and accountability in government and fidelity to the rule of law. You can read the lawsuit here.

According to the Judicial Watch-AEF amicus brief, should the Supreme Court fail to overturn the Ninth Circuit’s decision, the people of California would be deprived of “the right to decide for themselves the ways in which they want to restrict or liberalize their marriage laws – or not.”

According to the Judicial Watch-AEF brief, “The Ninth Circuit’s sleight of hand decision … constitutes a dangerous erosion of the principle of rational basis review … Furthermore, the Ninth Circuit decision expands the reaches of the Equal Protection clause in such a way as to eclipse the people’s sovereignty to make laws for their own governance … Finally, this [Supreme] Court should find that petitioners have standing to bring this appeal, as a contrary ruling would undermine the people’s rights to initiative and referendum in twenty-six states.”

The Judicial Watch-AEF amicus brief also argues that:

• The Supreme Court should re-affirm rational basis standard of review (the concept that a law is valid if a legislature has a legitimate interest in enacting a statute):  “the law the Proposition 8 enacted bears a rational relationship to the legitimate state goal of increasing the chances that both parents will raise children they unintentionally conceive.” The brief adds, “Only by severing the meaning of marriage from procreation can the Ninth Circuit deny that Proposition 8 is rationally related to responsible procreation … If the courts can overturn laws by reimagining their purpose, the judiciary’s power over the legislative process will be enormous.”

• Democratic decision-making should be protected from the overbearing judicial power respondents prefer. “The Ninth Circuit’s decision relies on the creative argument that Proposition 8 is unlawful because it functioned to ‘take away’ a previously granted right,” the brief states. “If allowed to stand, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling would create a new ‘one-way ratchet’ rule allowing state judiciaries to grant new rights which are instantly irrevocable by the citizens of that state.”

• If proponents of Prop 8 do not have standing to defend the law in court, democratic self-governance across the nation will be threatened. Former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and current Governor Jerry Brown both refused to defend Proposition 8 in court, prompting proponents of the initiative to seek to intervene as defendants. The Judicial Watch-AEF brief argued, “A ruling that Proposition 8’s supporters did not have the standing to defend their law would therefore constitute a devastating blow to the people’s right to direct democracy across the country.”

The brief asserts that redefining marriage would have a deleterious social impact and, as a result, a rational state interest in preserving traditional marriage.  Citing an assault on traditional marriage by the Bolsheviks in Russia, the brief details how “the consequences of early Bolshevik family engineering were documented as: an epidemic of divorces; economic hardship on women and children, particularly among the peasantry; an increase in “shelterless” (bezprizorni) children; and an ultimately diminished social status for women despite the feminist Bolshevik rhetoric.”

On Election Day 2008, 52% of voters in California elected to change the California State constitution to state that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The proposition led to a number of lawsuits challenging the proposition. In one lawsuit (Strauss v. Horton), the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, but allowed existing same sex marriages to stand.

On August 4, 2010, District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Proposition 8 violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. On August 16, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ordered the judgment stayed pending an appeal. On February 7, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court upheld Judge Walker’s decision, but stayed the ruling preventing additional same sex marriages from taking place until the appeals process has been exhausted. (The Ninth Circuit Court also refused to invalidate Judge Walker’s ruling on the grounds that he failed to disclose that he had been in a homosexual relationship for ten years prior to registering his ruling on Proposition 8 and therefore had a conflict of interest.)

In addition to its most recent U.S Supreme Court brief, Judicial Watch filed an amicus curiae brief in 2011 with the Supreme Court for the State of California, supporting the right of California citizens to defend Proposition 8 in court, and an amicus curiae brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in 2012 on behalf of the proponents of Proposition 8, urging the court to hear the case. Judicial Watch also filed a FOIA lawsuit against the Obama Justice Department to find out why the nation’s top law enforcement agency reversed course and decided to not defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court.

Proposition 200, passed in 2004 with 56% of the vote, provides that state election officials “shall reject any application for registration that is not accompanied by satisfactory evidence of United States citizenship.” Such evidence can include a driver’s license, a photocopy of a birth certificate or passport, naturalization documents, or “other documents that are meant as proof that [may be] established pursuant to” federal immigration laws.

On April 17, 2012, the Ninth Circuit ruled that voter registration provisions of Arizona’s Proposition 200 violated certain provisions of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. On October 15, 2012, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council, a challenge to Proposition 200.

With its amicus curiae brief Judicial Watch maintains that the Ninth Circuit erred when ruling that the NVRA “accept and use” provision prohibited states from requiring additional documentation:

The NVRA also does not provide that it is the exclusive authority on eligibility verification or that, as the Ninth Circuit contended, “Arizona’s only role was to make [the Federal] [F]orm available to applicants and to ‘accept and use’ it for the registration of voters.” [Emphasis added] The language of the statute not only does not prohibit additional documentation requirements, it permits states to “require . . . such identifying information . . . as is necessary to enable the appropriate State election official to assess the eligibility of the applicant . . .” Besides express authorization for a state to “develop and use” a form compliant with the statute’s criteria, the NVRA also provides that “each State shall establish procedures to register to vote in elections for Federal office . . .”

Judicial Watch further argues that, “The Ninth Circuit also failed to give any weight to the stated goal of the NVRA to ‘protect the integrity of the electoral process’ and ‘enhance the participation of eligible citizens as voters in elections for Federal office’ as guiding purposes of the statute. [Emphasis added] Under no sensible reading of the statute is the goal of election integrity advanced by allowing non-citizens to vote.”