The new States' Rights issue...

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

Well, not really new, so much as it is coming into its own, apparently.

Washington and Colorado both passed measures effectively legalizing recreational marijuana use.

What's most interesting, or perhaps amusing to me, someone who already thinks this should have happened and nationwide, and a long time ago, is how those who reside on the political left will couch the terms of this on the national stage.

I've experienced in the past, the phenomenon that even the mention of the phrase "States Rights" elicits cries of "you want to go back to the days of segregation?!?!?" before one can even get to the part where they describe what issue it is they're applying the term to. Kind of like a peculiar variant of Tourettes' syndrome. It's almost reflexive.

But essentially, that's the only phrase we have to describe the upcoming and all but inevitable battle between these two states and the Federal level. I want to gather thoughts on the left here how they view States Rights in this context, how it compares to when those on the right use it regarding things like social support structures. Why is it different, if it's different, in your eyes?

Comments

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

I couch it like this.

I think pot should be decriminalized everywhere. But a few states at a time is all I can get, so I accept it as 'baby steps'. The ability for this to happen in chunks, called states, is an anachronistic detail of history, which I'm willing to exploit, but have no real investment in; just as I exploit the fact that state legislators and executives have power, by voting for those who I think will use that power to the increased social weal. Such an act just requires me to recognize cause and effect, not to 'believe' in state's rights.

I have no investment in the sovereignty of states in themselves. I don't worry any more about their 'rights' than I do their 'feelings'.

States are not people, they are systems. Systems do not have rights, they have design features.

[politikitty.livejournal.com]

Yep. Mirrors my feelings quite closely.

I think states are incubators for public policy. The Federal Government should absolutely get involved in this conversation. But I also think that we've spent so much money on a terrible Drug War that involvement should probably be sitting back and allowing a natural experiment to work. Find out if this decreases crime and reduce our criminal justice costs without hurting folks, or does our prohibition on weed do some good.

I would be very very surprised if empiric evidence showed that the Drug War led to better outcomes. But sometimes empiric evidence can be counter-intuitive.

Practically speaking, we stopped prosecuting sodomy cases decades before Lawrence vs Texas. There is nothing that says the Federal Government has to spend their limited FBI budget busting WA/CO's balls on this.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

Fair enough.

Call it clarifying and solidifying jurisdictions rather than 'rights'. I think there are justifiable advantages for achieving better results across the board when discussing several matters of domestic social policy that doesn't involve individual rights protected at the federal level in relationship to using states and municipalities as laboratories.

In that regard, some level of protected sovereignty would be a beneficial investment.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

My first response was "Hell of an election party in Colorado tonight".

And what you say about rights and features is absolutely correct. People have rights. Not nations. Not states. Not corporations.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

This isn't a states' rights issue, it's an issue of enforcement. The states are declining to exercise their general police power in line with the federal government's commerce power. Nobody throws up their hands and cries out about the overwhelming constitutional crisis occasioned by Arkansas having a lower minimum wage statute than the federal one. This is functionally the same, only it deals with a much more hot-button topic where the federal government has traditionally relied on states for enforcement. Pot is still illegal. The minimum wage is still $7.25.

The question is, how will Congress respond? I see three options: Either they let it be, and have the DEA bust large-scale drug sales or growing operations under federal statutes, OR they drastically expand the DEA's size, add federal courts and prisons, and take on enforcement all by their lonesome with federal law, OR they attempt to strong-arm the states. The third is the most likely, I think, but also the most problematic. The basic method of "encouraging compliance" is to tie funding to state-level policies. However, that use of the spending power has been called into question by the Court's divided, unclear rule in NFIB v. Sebelius. Such a move by Congress could give the Court the opportunity to expand on its rule and get a real majority, when the states challenge it.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

The leveraging of funding is one of the big problems I have with the combination of a big pile of money + middlemen. Would like to see this behavior forbidden on the part of legislators, but always feel as though it's like trying to stop rising water. It's going to find some way around anything you put in its way.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that rule from NFIB v. Sebelius is going to be a real hum-dinger, isn't it? I can't wait to see how it plays out.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

What's most interesting, or perhaps amusing to me, someone who already thinks this should have happened and nationwide, and a long time ago, is how those who reside on the political left will couch the terms of this on the national stage.

I don't know why you think it's amusing. It's not an issue of state's rights. It's an issue of individual rights. I think the feds should stay out of it, the same way I felt about DOMA. We're not talking about secession or slavery, we're talking about the use of a substance less dangerous than tobacco or alcohol.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Ah but if the Feds do not intervine what is to prevent other states from following suit?

[ytterbius.livejournal.com]

Sorry, no time for detailed response. Recreating in WA.

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

Have fun! ;)

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

I'm here already, but unable to par-toke. Damn you, Federal urinalysis requirements!

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

I ran across a group of people back in the mid 1990s who advocated that it had been long enough, and why couldn't we just rehabilitate the Swastika already? After all, it is an ancient mystical symbol and not all of them look EXACTLY like Hitler's emblem.

Well, that didn't get very far. Some things get almost irreparably damaged because of what collosal assholes and evil bigots do with them.

So, if you really want to frame a legitimate debate on what jurisdiction the federal government should or should not have regarding states' criminal law, then I'd say frame it with THAT language and leave the term "States Rights" at the door because Jefferson Davis, William J. Simmons and Bull Connor got there first and left a legacy of death and terrorism attached to the expression "states' rights" as a rallying cry.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

This is not so much states' rights as Nullification 2: Electric Boogaloo. This issue was settled 180 years ago, not that it stops the occasional dittoheads from trying to ignore those settlements if they can get away with it.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

In Bali of course it's everywhere.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

Also good points. I'd rename them "Bob" if it meant I could get to talking about actual jurisdictional advantages of decentralized governing bodies in a myriad of subjects regarding social policy instead of having to cut through the "That's Racist!" level of superficial understanding.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Dammit to Hell we already settled this Nullification nonsense 180 years ago. Let sleeping dogs lie.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Invade Colorodo!

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

I'm not talking about nullification. I would like to see states have more authority to mix it up regarding many aspects of domestic social institutions. Variation, selection, and systems more readily capable of evolving and adapting over time, that's what I would like to see.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

This explains why the Republicans were so out of touch with the majority of American voters...

Instead of pushing the same old same old 1950's morality I wouldn't be surprised if the Feds follow the lead of progressive states within the next decade.

[oportet.livejournal.com]

Federal will beat out State. Even if an issue is decided to fall under 'states rights', if the Federal level wants it to be a certain way, it'll be that way - just like the legal drinking age.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

There are advantages to developing 50 sets of policies and seeing which ones work better than others and allow for imitation, rather than trying one policy at the national level, and waiting to see how a single pass-fail test for everyone turns out before trying to refine it.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

There are certain things that could use trying out on a local level before the national level and a lot of things should be done nationally as well. Context matters. I personally don't care for states' rights but if they're doing progressive things that the federal government is not than I support their endeavors.

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

Even though I very much want marijuana to be decriminalized I still think federal laws supersede state laws. I don't like it in this case but if anything I'm consistent. Anyway, what I'd like to see is federal law based on science instead of fear and paranoia. It's beyond stupid to imprison people for smoking a plant.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

Apparently it's easier to convince a state of this than the whole nation, which is probably why I can't understand why anyone would want to wait around for the whole nation to come around to an idea for the sake of upholding federal supremacy in a rather unquestioning and acquiescent way.

Does federal supremacy have to be accepted without question, regardless of how and when it's applied?

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

I applaud these states on their choice, and hope they lead us out of prohibition and into a new, greener, economy.