cannabisnews.com: Has Ashcroft Abandoned Federalism for Fed. Power?










  Has Ashcroft Abandoned Federalism for Fed. Power?

Posted by CN Staff on October 22, 2003 at 15:40:05 PT
By Radley Balko 
Source: FoxNews.com 

Recently, Mississippi gubernatorial candidate Haley Barbour posed for a fundraising event with the unabashedly bigoted Council of Conservative Citizens. The organization used Barbour’s photograph on its website and Barbour, for his part, has said he has no intentions of asking them to take it down. According to Fox News:Barbour, 55, said some views on the St. Louis-based group's Web site are "indefensible," but he does not want to tell any group it cannot use his picture or statements.
"Once you get into that, you spend your time doing nothing else," Barbour said Thursday. "I don't care who has my picture. My picture's in the public domain. It gets published in newspapers every day." One wonders how Barbour would have felt were his photo used on a website promoting communism or child pornography. Traditionally, Republicans have hid behind the notion of states rights, or federalism, when confronted with their inability to let go of the Confederacy, segregation and Jim Crow. But now that Republicans control both the White House and Congress, their actions seriously call into question just how devoted they really are to those principles. Perhaps the best example is the current Attorney General John Ashcroft. When Ashcroft was nominated to be Attorney General by President Bush in 2001, a consortium of left-wing interest groups set out to paint him as a racist. The most damning evidence in their favor was a 1998 interview Ashcroft gave to the Southern Partisan, a journal the leftist website Common Dreams says “views people of color as mosquitoes swarming onto the veranda to ruin the evening’s mint julep.” In that interview, Ashcroft had some very kind things to say about the Confederacy, about “states’ rights,” and about preserving southern heritage. “Traditionalists must do more,” Ashcroft said, “I’ve got to do more. We’ve all got to stand up and speak in this respect, or else we’ll be taught that these people were giving their lives, subscribing their sacred fortunes and their honor to some perverted agenda…” I didn’t then and don’t now think that John Ashcroft is a racist. I do, however, think that he has no problem accepting the votes and political patronage of people who are. And too often the kind of nostalgia for the Confederacy and for Jim Crow championed by outlets like the Southern Partisan are masked behind the principle of “states’ rights” or, more broadly, “federalism.” “We don’t support slavery,” Confederate apologists say, “we just don’t think the federal government had the right to abolish it.” “We don’t support segregation,” the thinking goes, “but we don’t think the federal government should be telling states how to govern themselves.” However, one can passionately support states’ right and federalism and also think the 13th Amendment and Brown v. Board of Education were important and necessary. Federalism has nothing to do with segregation or, for that matter, anything related to race issues.  Government works most efficiently when it’s most accountable to the people. If we must have government interference in our lives, it’s best to do it first at the local level, then at the state, and then -- only in limited circumstances -- at the federal level. Provincial government allows us the freedom to move away from jurisdictions we find oppressive or unfair. The framers of the Constitution understood these ideas, and so granted only minimal powers to the federal government, and through the Tenth Amendment, reserved most everything else to the states. John Ashcroft and other Republicans who have spoken with Confederate and/or segregation apologist organizations and then publicly about “states’ rights” have been allowed to speak with two tongues: one plays to the more nefarious inclinations of these organizations whose support they seek (but with whom I suspect they don’t really agree) and the other provides cover when they’re accused of racism. “I wasn’t talking about slavery, I was talking about federalism,” they can say. But Ashcroft’s record as Attorney General thus far has shown him to be a man completely unsympathetic to the tenets of federalism when they happen to conflict with his own personal values. This past winter, for example, Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen reported that Ashcroft has specifically charged U.S. Attorneys to aggressively seek the death penalty when prosecuting capital federal crimes in areas of the country traditionally opposed to the capital punishment. Yes, it’s completely within Ashcroft’s reach as AG to issue such a directive, but it’s also not the undertaking of a man sensitive to the importance of local rule. Isn’t it a bit unseemly that a man who professes to believe in states’ rights would specifically charge prosecutors to seek the death penalty in states that don’t support it? Voters in Oregon recently decided that the terminally ill and elderly in that state ought to be permitted to end their own lives through physician-assisted suicide. But Attorney General Ashcroft opposes assisted suicide, and so has taken the state of Oregon to court to assert the supremacy of federal law over the law approved by the voters of Oregon. Ashcroft’s questionable allegiance to federalism has become most apparent in the drug war. Despite the clear intent of voters in several states to allow the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, the Attorney General has asserted the supremacy of federal law time and again, going so far as to send federal agents into convalescent centers with assault weapons and, in some cases, handcuffing terminally ill patients to their beds. In another particularly galling example, Ashcroft’s Justice Department convicted marijuana activist Ed Rosenthal in federal court for growing large stashes of marijuana. Problem is, Rosenthal wasn’t just growing the plants for medicinal use (legal under California state law), he was growing them for the city of Oakland. DOJ prosecutors persisted, and not only was Rosenthal convicted under federal law, the jury that convicted him was never told that he was actually working for the city. Ashcroft’s supporters counter that as Attorney General, his job is to uphold and enforce the federal code -- whether he agrees with a particular law isn’t important. But that’s a bit naïve. Like any other cabinet head, the Attorney General works within a budget. He hasn’t nearly enough resources or prosecutors to go after every infraction of the federal criminal code (which, thanks in no small part to allegedly federalist-minded Republicans, is expanding exponentially). Consequently, Attorney General Ashcroft sets policy when he chooses which federals laws he’s going to actively enforce, and to what extent. Ashcroft’s decision to devote considerably large amounts of DOJ time and resources to challenging state drug and assisted-suicide laws he feels are too liberal can’t be dismissed with the likes of “he’s just doing his job.” He chose to set examples in California and Oregon because he felt DOJ resources were better utilized challenging those laws than, for example, investigating Al-Qaeda sleeper cells. Is John Ashcroft a bigot? Probably not. But given his 1998 interview with the Southern Partisan regarding states’ rights compared with his actions as Attorney General, one can’t help but wonder: Why was Senator Ashcroft so sympathetic to the “states’ rights” cause when it came to issues like the Confederacy and segregation, but when it comes to whether or not a terminal cancer patient ought to be able to ease his pain with a marijuana cigarette, Attorney General Ashcroft won’t let the states govern themselves? Radley Balko is a writer living in Arlington, Va. He also maintains a Weblog at http://www.theagitator.com/Complete Title: Has Ashcroft Abandoned Federalism for Federal Power? Source: FoxNews.comAuthor: Radley BalkoPublished:  Wednesday, October 22, 2003Copyright: 2003 FOX News Network, LLCWebsite: http://www.foxnews.com/Contact: comments foxnews.com Related Articles & Web Site:Ed Rosenthal's Pictures & Articleshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/trialpics.htmJohn Ashcroft's Assault on the Constitution http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17253.shtmlPatriot Act II Resurrected? http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17133.shtmlTarget: 'Narco-Terror' - ABCNews.comhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17116.shtml 

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help





Comment #9 posted by FoM on October 22, 2003 at 20:49:41 PT
Thanks ekim!
I would like to hear what Barney Frank has to say. Could you remind us tomorrow too? That would really be appreciated if you have the time.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by ekim on October 22, 2003 at 20:09:14 PT
reminder for radio show--
Barney Frank is doing interview Thursday night at 7:00pm he will talk to
WIDR radio 89.1 fm radio evolution from WMU in
Kalamazoo.www.widr.org----- about changing the Fed laws against Med Cannabis States --with 80 % for the law to be changed --surly more
lawmakers will stand up for those 80%. see how many are standing. tune in to
the Peoples Power Hour.Last nite Bill O'Riliey said that Tommy Chong should get Probation then he said do it again go to Prison. Fox news was sayen something about one of its shows was doing a show on Marijuana and taxing it but i have seen nothing.For newcommers when watching cable and seeing James Woosley ex Cia Dir talk about this and that remember that he is the Main Lobbyest for the Hemp growers. Any debate about the issue must include Mr. Woosley keen insites on global warming.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by FoM on October 22, 2003 at 19:49:14 PT
Thanks EJ
I posted the article. Here it is.http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread17646.shtml
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #6 posted by E_Johnson on October 22, 2003 at 19:09:37 PT

Another crack in the wall
Bolivian Leader's Ouster Seen as Warning on U.S. Drug Policyhttp://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/23/international/americas/23BOLI.html?hp
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #5 posted by FoM on October 22, 2003 at 18:58:55 PT

EJ I Know That's Right
When I watched a program on the Bubonic Plague and they thought it was the wrath of God and whipped themselves hoping to get favor back from God it reminds me of the events like the Salem Witch Trials. We can look at history and say how wrong they were but we are making history each day that goes by and they will see someday that fear and oppression of those who think differently was not the way they should have acted. 
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #4 posted by E_Johnson on October 22, 2003 at 18:45:27 PT

It's like during the witch hunts FoM
People go through cycles of belief about God's power in the world.During the witch hunts, people felt that Satan walked the Earth and had the power to win the battle over God through the action of women he made serve him by having sex with them in the woods. God in this view was a weak and angry and vengeful deity needing humans to do His battles for Him.What ended the witch hunts was the rise of an alternative view where God was so powerful and so good that He would never allow Satan to walk the Earth and have sex with women and victimize them into being his servants. Think of how many innocent people were put to death or died in prison while the good people of the realm were trying to sort out their confused vision of God in Europe.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #3 posted by FoM on October 22, 2003 at 18:34:33 PT

Religious Right
I'm not sure if I can explain what I think about the religious right but I'll try. Each denomination believes certain things but some beliefs will vary from area to area but one important issue that most from the RR believe is a certain standard for everyone. They often believe that when people stand up for something that they think could be a sin they get scared and then they get politically active. They are afraid the world will be taken over by those that don't love God and will bring all the vileness into their world. It is narrow minded thinking and sad when you realize that's how they think. If they trust God then don't they believe He can control issues without their help? When the line is blurred between a persons personal belief and what is acceptable to all of society they get really aggressive which we've seen and the sad thing is it is exactly what they shouldn't do. I hope they understand that someday soon. I hope this makes sense.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #2 posted by mayan on October 22, 2003 at 18:13:15 PT

States' Rights...
Here is some related info...The Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party:
http://www.4religious-right.info/states_rights2.html
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #1 posted by E_Johnson on October 22, 2003 at 15:43:43 PT

Jim Crow was a Democrat
"Traditionally, Republicans have hid behind the notion of states rights, or federalism, when confronted with their inability to let go of the Confederacy, segregation and Jim Crow.
"What happened in reality was that racist Democrats in the South realized the Democratic party wasn't going to stand by them in the Kennedy era, so the Southern Democrats became Republicans and put Reagan in power.
[ Post Comment ]






  Post Comment