Great distinction. It's how states get away with making weed "legal" even thought its illegal federal. Today, a federal agent could easily charge with you having a schedule 1 drug on your person in California and it would easily ruin your life. Banks generally won't deal with weed stores for this very reason so California had a vote to make it's on state-run bank but I can't remember if it passed.

That said, I don't think federal agents ever charge anyone primarily for possessing weed though I wouldn't be surprised if they add it on to an additional charge.

A couple decades ago, Alabama had no state law against prostitution, relying on the counties to have such laws, which all of them did. But there were certain parts of the causeway over Mobile Bay that weren't claimed by the adjacent counties, leading to small buildings used for prostitution being erected on some of the built-up land next to the road. Not sure about the outcome, going to guess the state DOT claimed ownership of the land, even if no county exerted jurisdiction, and used state law to have the buildings removed.

Murder is not illegal under English Common Law, it is unlawful.

So have US states actually passed statutes against murder, as opposed to simply setting the penalties for it?

There is no federal law requiring States to enforce federal drug policy. The inability of the federal government to compel state laws has been a source of tension throughout US history.

For a non-controversial, consider the drinking age in the US. To a first approximation, this was set by Congress in 1984 with the National Minimum Drinking Age Act. However, this law doesn't actually set a drinking age. It witholds federal highway funding from states that refuse to do so.

For a more controversial example, consider the medicaid expansion portion of the Affordable Care Act. The Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could not compell states to implement it, allowing some states to not do so. For completeness, I should point out that the expansion was 100% federally funded to start with, and dropped gradually to 90% by 2020, where it is set to remain indefinitely.

Another major example from US history is the Fugitive Slave Act, which required non-slave states to assist in returning escaped slaves. Some Northern states refused to coorporate with this law and was part of what led to the civil war. (Ironically, this is probably the clearest way that "states' rights" was a cause of the civil war, but I don't think it is what most people have in mind when they say "states" rights".

I don’t believe the states have to embrace everything the federal government says - see marijuana and enhanced IDs as examples. However the federal government often ties receiving federal funds to passing and enforcing federal policy. So don’t want to issue identification documents in compliance with the real ID act? Loose a portion of the highway funds. Want legal pot? Loose a portion of the highway funds. And so on.

State law can't override federal law. They have just instructed state police to not enforce that specific law. You could still be convicted by the FBI if they were to get involved for whatever reason, such as selling across state lines.

Interstate trade of marijuana is illegal, even between states that legalized trade inside state borders.

Jurisdiction be jurisdictin'.

EU commissioners work in partnership with elected Members of EU Parliament (MEP), for the simple reason that it makes no sense to write laws that MEPs will then veto.

Who voted for the US Secretary of State?

Those aren’t exactly commissions. They’re an organizational and productivity scheme of the Legislative branches through which they subdivide work between sitting democratically elected legislators. If something makes it out of committee, it can make it to the floor, but no committee is committing legislative acts on its own.

There are Executive agencies called “commissions”, but they don’t have bonafide legislative power, so much as a scheme by which they try to reinterpret the legislation that authorized their existence and outlined their powers and jurisdiction to accumulate to themselves more authority such that a Court will occasionally step in and say “naw dawg”.