Court Approves Marijuana Comment

The Vermont Supreme Court amended Rule 1.2(d) of the Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct, adding Comment 14.  The order amending the rule includes the text of Rule 1.2(d), the new Comment, and Reporter’s Notes.  You can view the order HERE.

I’ve previously blogged on the issue HERE and HERE.

The amendment takes effect on October 31, 2016.


3 thoughts on “Court Approves Marijuana Comment

  1. This conflict between state and federal marijuana law is an interesting and instructive happenstance. It illustrates the difference between legal authorities as expressed in the difference between the two Constitutional “Privileges and Immunities” clauses. The clause in section 1 of the 14th Amendment refers to a culture of freedom and liberty which is partially expressed in the Bill of Rights. It makes reference to a consensus of character, opinion and thought which precedes written and positive law. The Privileges and Immunities of Article IV, section 2, refers to articulated, positive rights idiosyncratic to a discrete state.
    Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution (also known as the Comity Clause) prevents citizens of one state from discriminating against citizens of another state present in a foreign state, only with respect to articulated rights a state may claim are only for its own citizens. The 14th Amendment involves something much more fragile and amorphous. Its character is partially choate in the Bill of Rights, but also relies on the philosophical/religious history of the Constitution and a view of life. The 14th amendment shows American optimism and belief in one another. The starting point is a mentality. The details will come later, as needed. If you don’t have talent, you need a method. America started with a genius of belief which preceded method and which would inform positive law.
    Good people and bad people use the same rules. Their intent varies. The divergent state and federal marijuana laws have brought us to a point at which we have to recognize and ask if a restriction against something is against our character as a people. What is more important in this analysis; our notions of individual rights and conscience or a posited law subject to police power without a resonant internal confirmation of a law’s value?
    Bob Grundstein/J.D./


Comments are closed.