NationStates Jolt Archive

An Editorial:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20050614.shtml

It seems like states rights are at the end of their rope. Remember, they've been in decline for a while, ever since the Civil War (considering that the whole war was fought upon that same question of state v. federal power)

It seems like states rights are at the end of their rope. Remember, they've been in decline for a while, ever since the Civil War (considering that the whole war was fought upon that same question of state v. federal power)
The concept of States' Rights was essentially gutted when Congress and the Supreme Court decided that "interstate commerce" trumped everything else when the question of Federal Jurisdiction vs. States' Rights came up.

But the right seems to champion states rights when it comes to gay marraige and abortion. It's hypocritical to jump to the other side of the fence when it comes to the legalization of medical marijuana.

I have to go now, so don't think I'm running out on you guys for any reason than that I have to.

Isn't it amazing how important States' Rights become when we speak of the right to prohibit gay marriage, the right to outlaw abortion, and the right to make them blackies get to the back of the bus? Yet if somebody suggests that the States should regulate matters like drug legalization, suddenly it behooves the "Family Values" crowd to leap on the federal-powers bandwagon. How delightfully hypocritical.

"States' Rights" should be outlawed, really. The true power should be kept centralised.

No one state should differ from another in terms of civil liberties, laws, and tax rates (but, remember that our tax system is in dire need of reworking for something like this to work).

States should be "standardised". It shouldn't be more difficult (or easier, whichever way you look at it) to live in another state, just because they have different laws and tax rates.

Isn't it amazing how important States' Rights become when we speak of the right to prohibit gay marriage, the right to outlaw abortion, and the right to make them blackies get to the back of the bus? Yet if somebody suggests that the States should regulate matters like drug legalization, suddenly it behooves the "Family Values" crowd to leap on the federal-powers bandwagon. How delightfully hypocritical.

amazingly like when the 'states rightsers' demanded that the federales do something about those damn northern states not returning their runaway slaves, no?

"States' Rights" should be outlawed, really. The true power should be kept centralised.

No one state should differ from another in terms of civil liberties, laws, and tax rates (but, remember that our tax system is in dire need of reworking for something like this to work).

States should be "standardised". It shouldn't be more difficult (or easier, whichever way you look at it) to live in another state, just because they have different laws and tax rates.
Just out of curiosity: why? Why should all states be forced to conform to the same federal laws? What's the point of having distinct States at all, if they all will have to be homogenized? Why not allow states to regulate themselves in all but the most basic areas (essential civil liberties, etc), and then expect citizens to choose to live in the state or states that best suit that citizen's needs and wants?

amazingly like when the 'states rightsers' demanded that the federales do something about those damn northern states not returning their runaway slaves, no?
It is rather like that, come to think of it. Especially since they aren't prepared to join the Federal system in apologizing for the lynching of many of them slaves...

Just out of curiosity: why? Why should all states be forced to conform to the same federal laws? What's the point of having distinct States at all, if they all will have to be homogenized? Why not allow states to regulate themselves in all but the most basic areas (essential civil liberties, etc), and then expect citizens to choose to live in the state or states that best suit that citizen's needs and wants?

Well, I'm looking at it this way: States with differing laws and tax rates make it more difficult for people to move around when and where they want. Why not standardise taxes and laws so we can eliminate this problem?

And, "essential" civil liberties, hmm? Hahahaha.

Well, I'm looking at it this way: States with differing laws and tax rates make it more difficult for people to move around when and where they want. Why not standardise taxes and laws so we can eliminate this problem?
So it's more difficult. So what? Having different restaurants with different menus and prices makes it much harder for me to make up my mind when going out to dinner, and it makes it far more difficult for me to accurately anticipate what I'm going to get when I try a new place.


And, "essential" civil liberties, hmm? Hahahaha.
Forgive me, I don't see what is humorous about basic civil liberties. Do you feel that it is wrong for a government to set minimum standards for civil liberties? Do you feel it is wrong for citizens to expect that their civil liberties be protected by their government? Do you find it laughable that a person would be idealistic enough to ask for such considerations from a modern government? Is it something else you find funny?

(Any of these answers could be quite reasonable, I'm not trying to be antagonistic here, I'm just trying to get in on your joke.)

So it's more difficult. So what? Having different restaurants with different menus and prices makes it much harder for me to make up my mind when going out to dinner, and it makes it far more difficult for me to accurately anticipate what I'm going to get when I try a new place.

I don't quite see what you're making of this. Do you think that because states will have the same laws and tax rates, they will suddenly become the same?

Forgive me, I don't see what is humorous about basic civil liberties. Do you feel that it is wrong for a government to set minimum standards for civil liberties? Do you feel it is wrong for citizens to expect that their civil liberties be protected by their government? Do you find it laughable that a person would be idealistic enough to ask for such considerations from a modern government? Is it something else you find funny?

No, I find it funny that you said the government should only be able to regulate the "essential" civil liberties. I, for one, think that all liberties are essential, no matter how "extreme", for lack of a better word. States shouldn't have more or less liberties than others.

(Any of these answers could be quite reasonable, I'm not trying to be antagonistic here, I'm just trying to get in on your joke.)

I don't remember making a joke, but whatever suits you...

It seems like states rights are at the end of their rope. Remember, they've been in decline for a while, ever since the Civil War (considering that the whole war was fought upon that same question of state v. federal power)

Setting aside the canard about the cause of the Civil War and many of the common misconceptions about the whole concept of "states' rights," the Supreme Court had actually been on a pro-state roll with cases like New York v. United States (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=505&invol=144), 505 U. S. 144 (1992); United States v. Lopez (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/u10287.html ), 514 US 549 (1995); Printz v. United States (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=521&invol=898), 521 U. S. 898 (1997), and United States v. Morrison (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/99-5.html), 529 US 598 (2000).

But politics makes strange bedfellows. Apparently, Justice Scalia feels that the Violence Against Women Act, parts of the Brady Bill, etc., exceed federal power, but directly overriding a state law on medical marijuana doesn't.

And the Ninth Circuit -- that bastion of liberal centralization of power -- had ruled the other way. ;)

The concept of States' Rights was essentially gutted when Congress and the Supreme Court decided that "interstate commerce" trumped everything else when the question of Federal Jurisdiction vs. States' Rights came up.

So, that would be 1824? :p

I don't quite see what you're making of this. Do you think that because states will have the same laws and tax rates, they will suddenly become the same?

Legally speaking, they will be the same. I don't see why we would bother having states at all, if they will all have the same laws and the same taxes...why bother dividing into states, if that's the case? Sure, there will be some regional differences, just as there are within any given state, but there won't be any reason to have distinct state borders and such any more.

I mostly just don't see any particular gain in doing away with States' rights. Sure, it might make things simpler for some people, but it will eliminate an element of choice that we currently enjoy. I value choice more than simplicity, I guess :).

No, I find it funny that you said the government should only be able to regulate the "essential" civil liberties. I, for one, think that all liberties are essential, no matter how "extreme", for lack of a better word. States shouldn't have more or less liberties than others.

Perhaps we are having a communication problem.

I believe that certain things are essential, basic rights, while there are other things that are not necessarily rights at all. For example, the right to end the lift of another human being is something that should be equally regulated across the board, because I believe all citizens should have equal expectation of justice in cases of murder. Rights such as freedom of speech, assembly, and expression should be equally protected in all states that wish to be a part of the Union.

However, then there are "rights" like the "right" to marriage. I don't see how anybody has the "right" to have the government get involved in their marriage, but some people feel differently. Some people feel that "society" has the "right" to be protected from individuals who would engage in risky behaviors like using drugs, while other people believe that individuals have the protected right to make personal choices about what they consume. I would vastly prefer allowing states to decide such matters individually, and then leave it to citizens to choose where they want to live, rather than having our federal government wasting its time on these trivialities.


I don't remember making a joke, but whatever suits you...
You laughed. Laughter usually implies humor of some kind. Sorry for the confusion.

So, that would be 1824? :p
I'm not EVEN going there. :p

Confusing, yes... Don't worry, I confuse myself plenty.

Anyway, states would become more like cultural boundaries. There would still be competition between states, though they would have the same basic, standardised laws. States would still have administration areas and capitols.

I, for one, think that government should stay out of people's lives completely. All it should do is protect your rights; not interfere with your life.

Just out of curiosity: why? Why should all states be forced to conform to the same federal laws? What's the point of having distinct States at all, if they all will have to be homogenized? Why not allow states to regulate themselves in all but the most basic areas (essential civil liberties, etc), and then expect citizens to choose to live in the state or states that best suit that citizen's needs and wants?
Because they aren't states anymore. A state implies a sovereign entity, in many cases a seperate country. When the United States was first conceived, it was a bunch of nearly seperate countries loosely tied together by a weak federal government. It was about as united as the EU is today. Over time the states have assimilated to become merely provinces of one nation. The borders bear little to no meaning now, I don't consider myself a New Yorker as I would 150 yeras ago, I consider myself an American. States rights were created to combat a menace which no longer exists, the federal government is now the important one.

Many parts of the constitution are severly outdatead. Today it makes more sense for the federal government to have the most power.

-edit- I do support the legalization of medical marijuana, as well as marijuana in general. The overall government has too much power.

-edit- I do support the legalization of medical marijuana, as well as marijuana in general. The overall government has too much power.

The government shouldn't even regulate drug use. It should, however, regulate the safety of drugs.

My state has the strangest contradiction ever. Marijuanna is illegal, however, you're supposed to pay these taxes and get stickers showing that you paid this tax.

Also, and I believe this is our state form, (could be federal), there is a line where you must report "all income from illegal sources". WTF?

How other states work, I don't know, but how can you buy these dope stickers when it's illegal anyway? :confused:

My state has the strangest contradiction ever. Marijuanna is illegal, however, you're supposed to pay these taxes and get stickers showing that you paid this tax.

Weird.

Also, and I believe this is our state form, (could be federal), there is a line where you must report "all income from illegal sources". WTF?

Hahahaha! There are signs in Mexico when you're going across the border that say, "STOP! If you are carrying illegal substances, please report to customs immdediately". I mean, what the FUCK?

How other states work, I don't know, but how can you buy these dope stickers when it's illegal anyway? :confused:

I dunno. That just sounds really fucked up.

The Supreme Court's recent decision saying that the federal government can prosecute those using marijuana for medical purposes, even when state laws permit such use, has been seen by many as an issue of being for or against marijuana. But the real significance of this decision has little to do with marijuana and everything to do with the kind of government that we, our children, and our children's children are going to live under.


Well, it matters the type of Medical Marijuana I'd assume. Personally the pill version should be legal because it is only for medical uses developed by the Govt.

I have no issues banning smoking versions.


Justice Clarence Thomas cut through that fog in his dissent when he said that the people involved in this case "use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana."

Instead of going in for fashionable "nuance" talk, Justice Thomas drew a line in the sand: "If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything -- and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers."


Actually Marijuana does affect market nationally. People do buy and sell, just not usually legally.

Actually Marijuana does affect market nationally. People do buy and sell, just not usually legally.

i think you missed something. the marijuana in question could not even in theory affect interstate commerce, legal or otherwise. it is not subject to market transactions - it has no price, and it does not affect the supply of pot available on the national black market, so it cannot have even an indirect effect.