cannabisnews.com: A New Shift of Power for U.S. Federalism





A New Shift of Power for U.S. Federalism
Posted by CN Staff on December 05, 2004 at 08:37:04 PT
By Jane Eisner, Inquirer Columnist
Source: Philadelphia Inquirer
The irony is rich: The conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court tend to be strong advocates for cases that restrain federal authority in favor of state autonomy.But not all the time. Not Monday, for example, when they seemed skeptical of the claim that a California law allowing marijuana to be used for medicinal purposes should trump Congress' ban of the illegal drug.
Moral: It's fine to let states do what they want only if they do what you want.The irony also is bipartisan.Liberals have long been wary of the states'-rights banner, largely because it was so often employed as a justification for racial segregation and discrimination. But Monday, when the Supreme Court let stand a Massachusetts law allowing gay marriages, well, cheers went up in blue states across the land.Turnabout has always been fair play in politics, and it's on grand display now that the Republicans have cemented their control of the federal government apparatus and Democrats are finding succor in the promise of local control. There's a kind of ecumenical amnesia happening, as the Bush administration asserts itself on issues of marriage and education - always, always stuff that used to be left for the states - while Democrats are suddenly arguing that Congress and the courts are playing Bigfoot with the Constitution.You could greet this as a cynical new chapter in political opportunism, and you'd be half right. A more generous explanation - in fact, a more accurate explanation - is that we're witnessing the latest manifestation of the quintessential and necessary American argument over federalism, about the balance of power between Washington and 50 states.As political scientist Martha Derthick has written, "A review of American history would show that the positions of leading politicians and the major political parties on the question of centralization versus decentralization have often been determined largely by expediency. Over time, the Republican and Democratic Parties have traded places on this question, and they could trade places once again if political circumstances were to change."James Madison might never have heard of medical marijuana or gay marriage, but he'd surely identify with today's inconsistencies. After all, he arrived at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia arguing for a national legislature with veto power over the states, and left a determined supporter of states' rights. The Founding Flip-flop.Centuries later, it's clear that there is no single answer or formula for how best to divide power and curb its abuse, and there's no shame in pushing the pendulum back and forth as the union adjusts to new realities.Modern technology has nationalized, even internationalized, commerce and communication, so trying to regulate those activities on a state-by-state basis is like using a typewriter ribbon to fix a computer. Without a national network of roads, commerce would slow down to horse-and-buggy speed; without a national postal service, mail delivery would truly move at a snail's pace.At the same time, as government is asked to take on more roles and solve more social problems than the founders ever could have imagined, it makes sense to allow states to experiment with differing ideas and approaches. On that smaller scale, failure is minimized, innovation encouraged. From welfare to marriage to education, best practices can be discerned and ineffective ones avoided.Even in this homogenized society, states retain distinctive cultures and standards that influence public policy. Many of the Bible Belt states that voted last month for constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage have some of the highest rates of divorce among heterosexual couples in the country. Massachusetts, on the other hand, may be more willing to embrace gay marriage because its divorce rate is the nation's lowest.So the debate between states' rights and nationalism is a good thing, a vital thing. It becomes abhorrent only when either side becomes too self-righteous in manipulating states' rights in its own interests. To both parties: Don't pretend that the federal government is the source of all evil when you ask Congress to do your bidding; and don't coo about the states as policy laboratories, unless you're willing to accept what could be a messy or uncomfortable outcome."But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?" Madison famously asked. Federalism brings out all our human inconsistencies.Hurrah for that.Note: GOP is focused nationally, Democrats are looking locally.Source: Philadelphia Inquirer, The (PA)Author: Jane Eisner, Inquirer ColumnistPublished: Sunday, December 5, 2004Copyright: 2004 Philadelphia Newspapers IncContact: Inquirer.Letters phillynews.comWebsite: http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/Related Articles & Web Site:Angel Raich v. Ashcroft Newshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/raich.htmShould Federal Policy Trump State Law on MJ?http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19982.shtmlLet States Decide Medicinal Pot Usehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19977.shtmlMedical Pot or Not? High Court To Decide http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19973.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #3 posted by john wayne on December 06, 2004 at 12:40:03 PT
the technology of the bust
would be affected.  Non-standardization over state lines. Those poor, poor police would have to learn a different law for their own state. Oh, woe and sadness!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by afterburner on December 05, 2004 at 20:30:35 PT
I've Got an Idea
How about a George W. Bush flip-flop (sandal) made of hemp fiber?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Sam Adams on December 05, 2004 at 16:22:59 PT
Really?
"Modern technology has nationalized, even internationalized, commerce and communication, so trying to regulate those activities on a state-by-state basis is like using a typewriter ribbon to fix a computer. Without a national network of roads, commerce would slow down to horse-and-buggy speed; without a national postal service, mail delivery would truly move at a snail's pace"Is that true? I remember visiting Europe long before the EU, and mail seemed to move betweem the various countries pretty quickly. Not to mention trains, airplanes, phone calls, financial transactions, etc. We've had 3 generations now raised and brainwashed with the idea of Big Federal Government as the protector and giver of life, it's hard to break free from that sort of thinking. 
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment