Clashing Views In Coats V. Dish Network

The conflicts between State and Federal law are numerous, recently the high debate concerning marijuana has been seeing high interest. This case highlights a division not only in citizen perception, but also the actualized reality in the Criminal Justice system; where morality and discretion as well as State and Federal powers clash. In a recent Colorado case, Coats v. Dish Network, where an employee was terminated and later sued, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled against Coats. This recent ruling shows how far of a reach the Federal government can have when influencing laws onto States
What the issue for the Coats case is concerned with, is how the Colorado courts interpreted their laws; that is, they extended the breadth of their meaning of “laws” in their statutes to include both Federal and State regulations. The courts used the Fair Labor Standards Act, a Federal law that requires all states to abide by Federal regulations concerning fair employment practices, to allow the interpretation of the word “law” to include Federal laws as well as states. Though marijuana has been allowed to some extent by Colorado’s 20th and 64th Amendments; where Federal law is

concerned the use of the schedule 1 drug is still illegal. Meaning that the courts utilized their discretion to allow Federal powers to be exercised within their state, in effect overwriting state laws by way of judicial discretion.
Hickey’s “Clashing Views in rime and Criminology” opens several distinct perceptions that have interest in this topic.

In his book Issue 15 is concerned with the legalization of marijuana. He presents two views one from E. A. Nadelmann who supports the legalization of the substance for both economic and cultural objects (arguably moral reasons as well), and the other form J. P. Walters who presents the issue as a social harm that leads to greater ills. Both present convincing issues, but what becomes relevant with the Coats case is the moral bases. That is, morally speaking, Coats was doing no harm to society as a whole and was abiding by state laws. Supporting Nadelmann’s views, the case falls under the ideology of courts using the laws to do more harm then good when confronted with marijuana

cases.
Hickey also opens up issues regarding Federal law and State law. In issue 20, the question was how states should operate their procedures regarding DNA evidence access to the accused/ guilty parties and whether the Federal courts had a right to infringe on state laws with Federal powers. How this relates to the Coats case is that the State court allowed Federal regulations to be used. In Issue 20 Justice J.P. Stevens argued on a moral bases, asserting that morality was needed in the courts and that the Federal powers had a responsibility to insure that justice would be carried out, however. Justice J. Roberts’ view was that the State courts had a right in interpreting their laws as they saw fit.
Here the issue was morality vs. the purpose of Federal oversight. A concept that is widely debated from issue to issue. Roberts’ view was that Federal oversight was only concerned with ensuring that states did not violate U.S. Constitutional Rights as well as other Federal laws that States are required to conform to, such as the Fair Labor Standards Act. His interpretation, in regards to District Attorney’s Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne (2009) can be seen as a respect for State laws, and acknowledging that Federal regulations existed as a frame work and border so that States do not infringe on human rights recognized by the U.S. government.
Concerning Coats’ case, issue 9 and issue 20 are both associated to some degree. Coats’ sees his actions as Nadelmann does, that they were morally right; and even more so when analyzing Colorado state laws as written and interpreted in its narrowest sense- by state laws only. Issue 20 comes into effect in regards to Federal powers and oversight. Here the State used the abilities of the Federal government to interpret it’s laws as both State and Federal regulations; making Coats guilty by Federal standards.
What these concepts illustrate is that division of perception that most people become aware of when confronted with some process in the criminal justice system; in this case the court system. Most individuals have the notion that justice is rooted in morality; they are not wrong, however. They often are unaware of the discretionary powers that the courtroom work group has. In regards to Federal and State powers, like Coats, most people understand that their state’s laws are supreme and that if they abide by them they are in the right. This too can become a product of discretion, where laws are both subject to and interpreted by the work group. The Coats case illustrated these points, where morality lost to discretion (as outlined in issue 9). As well as where Federal oversight can affect individuals even when they are appealing to state laws (a concept related to issue 20). Though the Coats case was centered around the legality of marijuana use and termination by employer, these concepts are applicable.