Yesterday, the Obama administration made clear that it would respect individual states and their decisions to distribute marijuana for medicinal purposes.
It would be pretty easy to turn this into either a Bush/Obama bashing thread or a pro-marijuana thread, both of which have been done to death here on the Dope. I’d like to keep it on a different topic, if you please.
I grew up with the belief that one of the core differences between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans believed in smaller governments and states rights, whereas Democrats believed in larger federal government as the encompasser of what government should be.
Now, I know that parties shift and change over time. One could argue quite effectively that the R/D parties of the 40s and before are completely opposite of those today and that the “Party of Lincoln” would be completely unrecognizable today.
Still, it seems as if Republicans do believe in smaller government and Democrats the opposite. Yet, here we have this example staring us in the face. Bush said “to hell with states rights, we’re prosecuting you under Federal Law,” whereas Obama couldn’t even wait 100 days to say “no, I disagree. States rights trump Fed in this matter.”
Ignoring your beliefs in marijuana for the moment, what do you think of this decision from a political party perspective? Is this an indication of a shift in party philosophy, has this shift been a long time in the making, or is this just a special case and means nothing more than what it means?
It seems to me that, especially lately, republicans are shifting further and further away from their “states’ rights” and “small government” platforms from years gone by. That’s one of the reasons certain republicans (such as Jim Jeffords,) left the party. It was no longer the party they joined.
I haven’t seen as much from the democratic party going in the other direction, except for this, but I admit I am not a very political person. But still, to answer your question, I think it’s been a slow, gradual progression from the republican party to move from states’ controlling things to the federal government. A short list of topics they seem to be moving away from states being on charge of:
Abortion/woman’s rights
Gay marriage
War on drugs
Civil rights
“Sciencey” issues (I don’t know the right word i want here, but things like money for stem cell research, ID/evolution, etc…)
I’d argue that it’s the same as it always was–generally speaking the national parties are for states’ rights when the states are “right” but against states’ rights when the states are “wrong”.
See this behavior with Marijuana, with Gay Marriage, with whatever issue you can think of that varies state-to-state.
I don’t recall the Democrats ever being pro-states’ rights.
As for the Republicans, yes; states’ rights has never been an actual principle of theirs, just asn excuse to push an agenda on a state level that they couldn’t on a national level. When they COULD push it on a national level, their states’ rights ‘principles’ vanished.
Probably a special case. Obama didn’t decide first that he thought states’ rights were peachy and then resolved the marijuana issue based on that; he decided not to waste money going after medical marijuana. Bush did the opposition, not because of any beliefs about states’ rights, but because he had more interest in outlawing marijuana.
Thus neither Obama nor Bush are abandoning principle here, let alone their parties. They disagree about marijuana, that’s all.
I’m no different - I would like to see marijuana legalized altogether, so ignoring medical marijuana is a good but inadequate first step. I don’t believe the hype the hemp folks push, but giggle weed is fairly harmless and enforcing the laws against it are a waste.
I don’t know that that qualifies. First, he’s one guy, not “the Democrats”. A position isn’t a “Democratic position” until either it’s part of the platform, or most of them support it platform or not.
And second, saying that state law supersedes a federal agency on that one issue doesn’t make someone a supporter of states’ rights as a principle. It just means that on that particular issue you think the states should be in charge, which isn’t the same thing.
The ends justify the means - he doesn’t care about states rights unless it’s handy.
And I kinda like the guy, but let’s be realistic here, he’s running the federal governement and if he wants to force an issue he’s not going to give state’s rights a second thought.
I think the party with the strongest social agenda is the one that tends to be most in favor of Federal power because they can influence the Federal Government and impose views on the states via the Fed. Back in the 60s it was the Liberals that had the strongest social agenda, and now it’s flipped back the other way largely because liberals got what they wanted to a great degree on social issues. So the Republicans came to realize the social issue debate was to be had at the Federal level and adjusted accordingly.
Personally I think a whole host of issues should be decided at the state level.
Drugs
Abortion
Gambling
Marriage
Speed Limits
Drinking Statutes
Prostitution
If those things were left as states rights issues people could more easily find a cheerful conformity with their own tastes and move to the state that most pleases them. Right now we have the problem of imposing too much at the Federal Level so we are all subjects to the tyranny of the majority on every issue where our own views do not resemble the prevailing views in Washington. Some issues just stick through bureaucratic inertia.
Has he ever said he cares about states’ rights at all ? A phrase like “the ends justify the means” rather implies that he’s violating some sort of principle to achieve a goal, which he’s not if states’ rights isn’t one of his principles.
Obama made an announcement that he is going to LET the states’ policies on marijuana prevail – the very fact that he made the announcement demonstrates that he knows better than to claim that states’ “rights” override federal law. The Supreme Court of the US has ruled otherwise. The term is constitutionally meaningless anyway – states have powers, not rights. Most arguments regarding the subject are incoherent because the actual basis for the positions held is not states’ rights at all, but a non-negotiable stance on social morality vs. personal liberty.
Which gun laws (and I guess, which conservatives) are you referring to? I know some people like the idea of a federal carry permit, and consider Section 926A (Interstate transportation of firearms) to be a good thing. But the same people generally think a federal assault weapons ban, the National Firearms Act, etc. to be bad.
Do you think Obama would veto a federal assault weapons ban because some of the states are fine with people owning assault weapons?
Which ones are YOU refrerring to? I do know that gun nuts object to pretty much any state’s attempt to restrict anything. What state power do you imagine that Obama wants to abrogate with regards to guns?
What does any of that have to do with states’ rights?
What state’ rights do you imagine that an assault weapon ban would abrogate? You can’t abridge rights that don’t exist. Do you actually know what “states’ rights” means?
By the way, Obama’s stance on medical marijuana is not a recognition of states’ rights. The Supreme Court has already ruled in Gonzales v. Raich that the federal government has the right under the commerce clause to ban wacky tobaccy. This is not an act of deference to an imagined right, it’s a use of executive discretion not to use a power.
Incidentally, the Commerce Clause is also what gives the federal government the right to regulate guns.
Approving or disapproving of certain state laws has nothing to do with state’s rights.
Most likely the power to decide whether or not the people of that state should be allowed to own assault weapons, though there may be others as well.
A (hypothetical) federal carry permit law would make carrying legal in every state, whether that state liked it or not.
The Interstate Transportation of Firearms law makes it legal (under certain circumstances) to transport guns through any state, whether that state like it or not.
Both the National Firearms Act and a federal assault weapons ban make or will make it illegal for people in any state to buy certain firearms, whether the state would choose to allow them to or not.
The right to make their own laws (which might allow such weapons) rather than be bound by the federal law.
If the federal government passes laws that make something (such as marijuana, or gay marriage, or certain guns) illegal, a state can’t just decide that they don’t like that law and that what ever it is is legal in that state. And the opposite, if the federal government says that abortion is legal, a state can’t make it illegal in that state.
You are the one that doesn’t seem to understand what states’ rights means.
It’s about whether the federal government should pass laws that apply in all states, or should not pass such laws and allow the individual states to have their own laws (which may be either more or less restrictive than the possible federal law). Being in favor of state’s rights means that one believes the states should have the power to make their own laws, (which can be different from one state to another) rather than have things decided at the federal level. The Constitution says that some types of laws should be made at the federal level , and some left to the states. It is debatable exactly which types of laws fall into which category.