Yes, he’s from Alabama so to him “States Rights” means bringing back black slavery. :rolleyes:
Well, segregation. Schools, buses, restaurants, etc. The new AG has expressed pro-Jim Crow sentiments.
Of course, denying certain people voting rights is currently being implemented via other tricks: voter ID laws, gerrymandering, etc.
If you believe in the rationale the court provided in Wickard v Filburn then, yes, the federal government can regulate marijuana production and sale that does not have any other interstate nexus other than hypothetically affecting the price of the commodity in interstate trade.
And since Jeff Sessions has strongly supported the position taken by the federal government in *Wickard *we can conclude he is a proponent of a strong centralized government and very much against state’s rights, right? 
Several of the states preceded the union and delegated some sovereignty to a national government. The idea is that sovereignty is inherent to people and people ceded power to the government as a concession to the idea that a society with a government can do certain functions more efficiently than a society with no government.
Rights and powers not explicitly granted to the newly formed national government were reserved for the people and states. It doesn’t seem that complex of an idea. In practice naita summarizes a lot of folks point of view perfectly.
Not that complex of an idea, perhaps, but it was used most prominently, historically speaking, to advocate (hypocritically) for supposed rights like slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow. I’m sure there have been some honest and non-hypocritical supporters of “States’ rights”, but historically, the most prominent advocates for states’ rights were mostly white supremacists.
At one point slavery was indeed legal. Perhaps for most of human history. I don’t see how utilizing a particular concept that is fundamental to the nation’s foundation for something that, historically speaking, became mostly illegal recently taints the concept. Should the 1st and 2nd amendment among other concepts be tainted because people used them in support of slavery or other noxious ideas/practices?
Funny now that Trump is president the left and states like California are rediscovering the constitution as written.
The concept is tainted (IMO) because its most prominent advocates in American history were extremely hypocritical, and only advocated for states’ rights when they were ‘rights’ in support of white supremacist policies and practices, and actively opposed states’ rights (like with the anti-states’ rights 1850 Fugitive Slave Act, among many other things) when it conflicted with their preferred white supremacist policies and practices.
That is definitely problematic. Yet, being completely dismissive of the federal system of government is even more so.
Not necessarily.
I’ve described this problem as the Free Parking Rule Paradox, although it’s not a paradox at all. The name just sounds good.
The same reasoning may apply to Secretary Sessions. He may simply conclude that although he disfavors the reasoning in Wickard, he will not place himself at a disadvantage in a framework where only his opponents can use the rule. If the law is as Wickard says, then he’ll play by that law, even though he favors a different outcome.
Or, he may simply adopt whatever reasoning advances his desired outcome with no regard for principles. Dunno. Yet.
Maybe. I sure wouldn’t call it “integrity.”
It’s a game with arbitrary rules. Group X uses a different set or rules than Group Y. There is nothing hypocritical or lacking in integrity in playing by the agreed upon rules.
Then you would sound hopelessly confused about what integrity is.
The argument I was making before the game starts involved what set of rules is better for the game and all players. Once we all agree on a set of rules, there’s no lack of integrity in playing by them. It’s not a moral issue; money in Free Parking is a morally neutral rule.
Perhaps you can show your work? It’s an interesting conclusion. One wonders how you got there.
A game of Monopoly is a lot different in consequences than the legal issues we are discussing. When it comes to legal issues, I personally would prefer that parties play under the rules that they want everyone to play by, Categorical Imperative and what not. I personally find the CI the absolute best guide for acting in good faith. Those that do not follow the imperative I believe are fundamentally acting in bad faith.
I don’t know exactly how it implies to this case, but that’s my answer to “Should you use a rule you disagree with to your benefit?” for legal issues. For games of Monopoly, sure, I’ll follow whatever rules we’re playing, it doesn’t really matter.
They shouldn’t. But Supreme Court gave the federal government that power in Wickard v. Filburn. Unfortunately.
There certainly are flaws in what I just stated, mainly that one generally will have to work within the system that they are given, and if they want to change the rules they may need to use the very rules they want to change in order to get them to pass muster with the rest of the legal system. But when you’re doing that sort of thing you’re probably doing a full overhaul of the entire system as in the Constitutional Convention to “amend” the Articles of Confederation.
I think we’re more talking about interpretations of law, and in this instance it makes sense that if you favor a certain interpretation of law, that one’s reasons to reach that conclusion cannot use the fact that the law currently has a different interpretation. That would be like having an argument whose conclusion contradicts one of its premises. But again, I’m not sure exactly how this particular point fits in with the issues at hand, so maybe I shouldn’t have bothered butting in.
But at the same time, professional baseball leagues that have teams in more than one state do not participate in interstate commerce.
Is there interstate trade in marijuana that happens with the blessing of the states?
IIRC, most states where it’s legal don’t allow you to bring it over the state line, even if you’re crossing into another state where it’s legal.
It’s based on the 10th Amendment. The Federal Government has a very delineated scope of authority. The 10th says that whatever wasn’t allocated to the federal government is the province of the states. Needless to say, over time the federal government has totally ignored the 10th Amendment and has turned into the behemoth that the Founding Fathers were very specifically trying to prevent.
So imagine you’re in small claims court being sued for an injury to a guest of yours that happened during a party. The guest tries to admit into evidence a text message that you sent that shows you were aware of the hazard ahead of time but did nothing. You think it’s hearsay and ask that it not be admitted. The judge rules against you.
Now you have another text message that shows the guest was also aware of the hazard and was eager to take the risk of injury.
Do you refuse to offer it in evidence because you still think it’s also hearsay, and even if your opponent benefits from the admission of hearsay, you piously won’t?