that classified marijuana as an illegal substance. The three plaintiffs suffered various maladies that they thought would receive beneficial treatment with medicinal marijuana but were challenging the role of the two public officials in enforcing state statutes enacted by the legislature. Their arguments boiled down to an argument that failing to create an exemption for medicinal use was unconstitutionally arbitrary and also violated their right to privacy. At the trial court level the judge ruled that the matter had been settled by the Kentucky Supreme Court with principles addressed in Commonwealth v. Harrelson, 14 S.W.3d 541 (Ky. 2000). He ruled in favor of the positions of the governmental officials. The plaintiffs appealed to the Kentucky Court of Appeals. That tribunal ruled that the statutes are not impermissibly arbitrary because they serve a valid public interest in controlling marijuana for reasons related to health, safety and criminal activity. The appellate court further ruled that the restrictions on marijuana do not violate the right to privacy because they don’t stem from efforts to interfere in morality or private conduct. Of more direct interest here, the appellate court ruled that the plaintiff’s claims were nonjusticiable because “they raise a political question within the exclusive purview of the legislature.” The judges acknowledged the importance of the basic concept of our governmental structure designated as “separation of powers.” Courts and judges may appear to have broad latitude in taking up and deciding cases but if one were to examine legal filings it would quickly become clear that the initial point of departure in nearly all arguments directed to the court will related to the authority of the tribunal to take up the matter, it’s jurisdiction.
|27| www.KPHANET.org
