Wouldn’t it be nice if a president elected under these circumstances actually governed with full recognition of the fact that the other person actually got more votes than they did?
He was asked. He said if he wanted the popular vote win, he would have just campaigned in New York and California, and win even more easily! I swear, I am not making this up!
Jefferson Beauregard Sessions was brought in to provide the legal hammer to anti-immigration policies and to look the other way when states engage in rampant voter suppression. Perhaps Sessions gets involved in drug smuggling rings and disqualifies blacks from voting, thus purging more voter rolls. Moreover, Sessions will look the other way as state engage in rolling back the civil rights laws of the 1960s.
Not necessarily a waste of money. (for some) Federal “for profit” prisons are now slated to be phased out at the moment, sure. But that can be reversed quite easily under “the new boss”.
Marijuana offenders are terrific prisoners. Non violent. Not really criminals, really. Great prisoners. Sure it will cost the taxpayer more. Lots more. But that’s not really the point, is it? It will create some wonderful businesses, with lots of great profit, and thankful constituents who will want to distribute a little of that profit … to who? Well to the wonderful job-creating politicians, of course! Great plan!
I don’t reach the same conclusion. From a federalism standpoint, states have always served as laboratories for democracy; they can try some scheme or plan, and if it is wildly successful, their experience can serve as a model for the rest of the country.
I think marijuana legalization is an apt example of this principle. States have been able to demonstrate that it doesn’t cause noticeable up ticks in crime and that it generates useful tax revenue. A sensible Federal government might jump on this evidence in informing its own policy.
The risk, which I mentioned and you reiterated, is that the federal government will eschew this federalism principle in favor of imposing a superceding scheme or plan. And it is a real risk. But, remember that states don’t have to enforce Federal law, so the task of enforcement is on the feds. With a finite budget (and given the positive outcomes mentioned earlier), I have hope that raiding dispensaries would be a low priority.
Then again, I’m assuming a sensible government. Come inauguration, we no longer have that.
I think this makes sense. His justice department would likely not spend a ton of time on civil rights issues, especially as it pertains to minority voting rights. They’ll spend their time prosecuting immigrants; it feeds the narrative.
“Federalism” has always only existed for the right wing. The government’s never cared about “states rights” or anything like that when it comes to the left or moderates. Right back to before the Civil War, when the South totally ignored “states rights” by passing things like the Fugitive Slave Act, but as soon as they lost Federal dominance started screaming about how the Federal government had no authority over them and eventually rebelled.
I was scanning the thread and this line cracked me up. Did that really happen? Talk about the perfect being the enemy of the good. I wonder if he found an organization that suited his tastes better. Lots of good ol’e southern boys like smoking the ganga nowadays.
We have front row seats and everything. Like Carlin said, it’s the greatest show on Earth! Way better than TV. Bring snacks! No edibles, though.
And the potential risk there is that such an experiment is dependent on the federal government allowing it, or at the very least looking the other way, when what the states are doing runs afoul of federal law. If Sessions decides as AG to start raiding dispensaries, he’ll be fully within his rights to do so.
Medical weed is very useful. Rolled my Mom some fat doobies when she was on chemo, it helped. So, yeah, given his record, I fully expect him to injure the people who need it the most. But, of course.
You realize of course the basis of the Fugitive Slave Act is Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3
And that the 1850 law was written because states refused to enforce the 1793 law. So in effect you’re saying states have a right to ignore Federal Law they disagree with.
Your indignation is mighty; your knowledge of history is anemic.
The Fugitive Slave Act was an act of Congress. It did not “ignore,” states’ rights because the very concept of “states’ rights,” refers to the powers that are NOT granted to the federal government in the federal constitution. In other words, the fact that states are forbidden to coin money is not an infringement on states’ rights, even though states do have plenary legislative power. Why? Because the Constitution explicitly grants the federal government the exclusive power to coin money.
The Fugitive Slave Act is similar: Congress had the power to pass such a law by virtue of Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3 of the US Constitution, which provided:
So that’s that. This clause was operative law until nullified by the Thirteenth Amendment.
Does anyone have any cites for Sessions being a racist other than the KKK/pot attempt at humor? Because so far, I haven’t seen any other than “His policies differ from mine and he told a joke in very poor taste once 25-ish years ago.”
I’m not saying he’s not racist, just that I’ve yet to see any examples of it beyond that one.