Continued from the "Separation of Church and State" board:

[This discussion has become a bit off topic there, and so I'm posting here. There is no "Separation of Powers" board, either for Tenth Amendment "States Rights" (which is where this might better fit in) powers or for separation of powers between the Executive and Legislative branches of the federal government.]

Consider the details of the California marijuana case. The state of California not only decriminalized medical use of marijuana, but authorized the positive use of it under controlled circumstances. (In other words, it is no longer unconditionally illegal, it is just another prescription drug.)

Meanwhile, Congress, using the Interstate Commerce clause*, by declaring that because the availability of medical marijuana would affect the local economy, and the local economy affects the Interstate economy, passed federal laws against growing or possessing marijuana.

A man, the head of an organization authorized by the State of California to grow and process medical marijuana was arrested and tried by federal officials and found guilty.

So far it looks like federal law trumped local law. But if we examine the reverse situation, we see that it is not that, but that the jurisdictions are independent and each can ignore many of the laws the other passes.

Consider the hypothetical situation where California is attempting to control an insect blight and strictly regulates the cultivation of corn.

Meanwhile, the federal government gives a grant to an organization to develop a better version of "gasohol." The organization owns or buys a farm in California, that is not on federal land, and fails to obtain a state permit to grow corn, either because they are turned down or because they never applied in the first place, figuring that being federally sanctioned they don't need it.

If the State of California wishes, it can prosecute and convict the officers of this organization, just as the feds tried and convicted the guy in the other example, and the federal government can do nothing (legally) to prevent them. (In actual practice, however, they are likely to up the political heat until the State decides not to bother prosecuting, but that is an issue separate from their legal power.)

*One of the issues appealled during the course of the trial, the one that advanced all the way to the Supreme Court, was the claim that the law exceeded the mandate of the Interstate Commerce clause. The Court made a narrow ruling based on how the appeal was worded, which allowed them to sidestep the real issue, and allowed the federal law to stand.