Will pot prove the conservative kettles black?
States' rights. Here's another chance for conservatives to prove they really believe the states should decide laws for themselves. And here's another time when they prove themselves two-faced. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the feds may arrest people who use medical marijuana even if their state has legalized it. There's virtually no chance the GOP is going to step up and say the states can decide for themselves if they want to allow medical marijuana prescribed as pain medication.
(My money says the biggest voice against legal medical marijuana is Big Pharma. Can't have customers, er, patients passing up Oxycontin for home-grown. Where's the money in that?)
So what's it gonna be, red-staters? States' rights or more "federal tyranny"? Here's your chance to speak up.
posted by Daniel Preece @ 9:02 PM
2 Comments
2 Comments:
My post was about the true nature of the "states' rights" issue, which is that nobody actually believes in state supremacy. Everybody runs to the federal government when the states don't give them what they want. Democrats, Republicans, everybody. My jab at the GOP is that they publicly cry for state supremacy but always stab it in the back (the 2000 election, Terry Schiavo, class action lawsuits, etc).
The difference between drugs and abortion is the latter is a major rights issue, not just a jurisdictional issue. Meaning, there are fundamental rights no level of gov't can infringe upon. Since abortion is the debate between a mother's right to her body and a fetus' right to be born, this is much bigger than any state issue.
That said, I'm fairly certain that the Founding Fathers would not have a problem with the Roe v. Wade decision per se. If they didn't like it, they would have gone back and amended the Constitution to specify their opinion on this issue (not attack the judiciary for carrying out its role).
If somebody tells me they believe in state supremacy, then they better well stand up for it when they get the chance. If they don't, then I want to expose them as liars or hypocrites. The state's rights issue is a scam. Nobody believes in it except knuckleheaded rednecks (my beloved neighbors) who don't understand what they're talking about. But the right-wingers use it as a wedge to win elections. And that scheme will fall flat on its face if we can ever get the knuckleheads to wake up to the reality that they're being lied to.
Moreover, I demand politicians actually stand for what they say they stand for. If they REALLY believe that state's should have final say, then they would actually step up and defend that right--even if it means accepting a result they don't like.
Yes, I do believe the federal gov't has the right to decide the legality of the death penalty in this country. If the fed gov't says "legal," then any state can use it if they wish. If they say "illegal," no state can use it.
But I don't think this can be by statute. It probably must be by amendment, since the Supreme Court has already ruled that the phrasing "cruel AND unusual" allows the death penalty because the death penalty is not unusual, no matter how cruel it may be.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home