AG Hilgers cites Supremacy Clause in his opposition to medical marijuana
When I was running for the office of attorney general against then-Senator Hilgers, I heard him emphasize how important it was for us to have an attorney general who was willing to stand up to the overreach of the federal government. I haven't had the opportunity to listen to the recording of AG Hilgers speaking before the Judiciary Committee on the medical cannabis bill (LB588), but the text cited above regarding what he said during the hearing was reported in the Unicameral Update (http://update.legislature.ne.gov/?p=33352).
I hope that those "grassroots" groups and individuals (Nebraskans Against Government Overreach, Nebraska Freedom Coalition, Matt Innis) in the political arena who endorsed Hilgers for the office of attorney general will be vocal and keep a watchful eye on Hilgers with regard to overreach of the federal government.
There is a good letter (written in 2018 to a Kentucky legislator) on the Tenth Amendment Center website which discusses marijuana and federal supremacy. That letter can be read at the link below:
Regardless of your position on medical marijuana, I believe it is important for people to take note of Hilgers' reference to the Supremacy Clause in his opposition to the bill. It should raise an eyebrow as to Hilgers' commitment to protect Nebraskans from the overreach of the federal government. Though I am not an attorney, I hold the position expressed by the author of the letter cited above from the Tenth Amendment Center, who concludes his letter by saying, "If you support medical marijuana, then there is no constitutional issue standing in your way. If you oppose medicinal cannabis for some other reason, simply say so. But please stop hiding behind a bastardized conception of federal supremacy."
Will "grassroots" groups in Nebraska who endorsed Hilgers for attorney general speak out on this and put a spotlight on Hilgers to hold to his word to protect against federal overreach? And will Hilgers prove to be selective in how it is that he chooses to interpret the Supremacy Clause? The truth is that our previous Governor Ricketts and our previous Attorney General Peterson were staunchly opposed to any legalization of marijuana, and so it is no surprise that the candidates whom they endorsed and who have succeeded them are also strongly opposed to it as well.
The heart of the matter here, which should be of concern to every Nebraska citizen who is concerned about overreach of the federal government--with regard to this issue or any other--is that there is a lot of political game-playing going on. I would agree with the assertion in the letter from the Tenth Amendment Center website that this is a bastardization of the concept of the Supremacy Clause. A true defense of our state from federal overreach on any issue must be rooted in honesty and consistency in the letter of the law--not in the preferences of politicians. Those at the helm of our state government have argued (both in the past and still at present) that medical marijuana use is unsafe because it lacks FDA approval. But what a joke that is when former Governor Ricketts (who "leveled up" when his pal Pillen was selected to succeed him) spent countless press conferences standing in front of plandemic propaganda banners emblazoned with the message of "Do Right, Right Now," encouraging all Nebraskans to go out and get their "emergency use authorization" COVID-19 vaccines.
We won't be protected against government overreach at any level with those kinds of inconsistencies. We need a more honest debate. As it is stated in the letter I referenced above, if our elected officials are opposed to something, they should at least be honest and not try to manipulate, bastardize, and twist things in defense of their position. It is an insult to us and to the rule of law when they do.