AG Holder Supports States Rights

Now, admittedly, I’ve got a bit of a soft spot for AG Holder, given that we went to the same school and all (sadly for my future government career, at different times, and he has no idea who the hell I am).

But either way you slice it, I’m pleased at this new decision.

For a long while, various states have been instituting medical marijuana programs. This has led to a little publicized “war” between various states and the federal government, wherein the federal DEA would raid state-sponsored medical marijuana distribution centers and the state would keep opening up new ones in defiance. It’s hard to say how much taxpayer money was wasted in these who-trumps-who-contests, but probably a fairly significant chunk.Obama pledged to stop that, but he also pledged for a 16-month pullout, and hasn’t kept that one either. (Remember, what do we call people who fail to pull out in time? Usually, parents. The principle holds)

The precise quote from the Obama administration however (admittedly after they were caught not changing thees things prior)? “Federal resources should not be used to circumvent State laws”.

And personally, I think it’s a good step and a great precedent. Federal resources should not be used to circumvent State laws unless those State laws are direly negatively impacting people, and medical marijuana, whether you believe in it or not, definitely doesn’t rise to the level of dire circumstances I think would be necessary to make it valid.

Really, I couldn’t care less about the practical impact-I’m in the military, so this will never apply to me and mine. But I would like to see some stronger states’ rights, and I think it will be useful to pull up if things attempt to go the other way. At the very least it’ll make for an interesting quotation.

5 Responses to “AG Holder Supports States Rights”

  1. Congratulations to me: I was the 1,000th visitor.

    Well, AS, I wouldn’t have expected you to be an advocate of States’ Rights but your support for marijuana is not surprising. Considering that the first few weeks of the new administration has overseen policies trampling states rights and growing the federal government, are you ready to renounce your support of the adminstration?

    Will you oppose the 10th Amendment Rights of States to set their own speed limits, to make their own decisions on health insurance and taxes? Will you oppose the big power grab by the Federal Government by the current Administration and Congress?

    Or are you more concerned about the Broken Promises highlighted here: ?

    Do you support the $900 Million package to Hamas though with political double-speak “not Hamas” while the raises of our Troops are cut?

    Do you think the $50 Billion Obama requested fo run two wars with 100,000 Troops in 2011 is sufficient? Do you agree with Frank and Murtha that the DoD budget should be cut by 25% in a time of war, while we see 7% increases in the budgets of non-Constitutional programs?

  2. I’m gonna have to call you on this:

    And personally, I think it’s a good step and a great precedent. Federal resources should not be used to circumvent State laws unless those State laws are direly negatively impacting people

    The whole point of the 10th Amendment is that the people at the local level know what’s best for them. Look at Utah. Predominantly Mormon. Incredibly conservative laws in the state regarding alcohol and some other issues. If you don’t like it, don’t live in Utah. They know what’s best for THEM. The federal government has NO BUSINESS making any laws or forcing states to comply with certain parameters to receive “federal funds” that come from us anyway (see above like the speed limit, blood alcohol limit, No child left behind act, etc).

    I recently saw a chart from the federal government (I can’t remember which department it was) but it listed how much money each state gets for every federal dollar taken in taxes. So here in the midwest, we give a dollar, we get back about $0.85 in federal money. Almost all the southern states get back about $1.10 or more back. Why? Partly because their property taxes are about 1/3 what I pay here and they’re getting education funds. My property taxes pay for my great education system and my federal income tax dollars pay to improve the education systems of the south.

    That is f*cked up.

    The whole point of the 10th amendment was to prevent ANY kind of power grab from the government. I’m actually with you on the medical marijuana thing because each state’s residents need to figure out if they will allow it, how they’re going to regulate it, how they’re going to determine medical versus recreational use, all of that and how the court system will deal with the issues. But that type of thinking applies for MANY, MANY laws and situations that the government has forced upon us or made illegal.

  3. Yeah, I’ll agree with you on some of those. I probably should have clarified my statement of “dire situation”. I don’t believe any state should have the authority to make laws against the Constiituion. I believe speed limits are not “dire straits”. Actually I’d support a model like the Autobahn’s in Germany-where you have recommended speed limits, but you don’t get tickets, but you’re automatically at-fault for an accident if you were driving over them and get in a wreck. Same with BAL-you’re actually more at risk to get in a wreck while desperately tired than mildly intoxicated, but you don’t see people going to jail because they drove bone-exhausted.

    Dire situation, to me, is anything depriving people of life, liberty, or happiness without due process. Utah does have crazy laws about liquor and cigarettes. However, no one is direly harmed because they have to drive to get liquor. Now, if Utah made a law saying that, I don’t know, unwed pregnant mothers couldn’t get treatment at state hospitals because it was immoral. that would be something I would be totally okay with the federal government stepping in.

  4. I find it interesting that you are qualifying your statement. Either the 10th Amendment, which specifically says: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people is a valid amendment or it is NOT. No equivocation.

    The federal government does not have the right to impose its will at ALL besides what’s been given in the Articles.

    You make the example of unwed pregnant mothers and state hospitals. Most hospitals are private enterprises. If a hospital chose not to treat unwed mothers, economics say if there is a great demand for that service, another hospital WILL step in. There is a problem when the federal government tries to legislate business as we’ve seen the horrid effects of recently with regulation, deregulation, partial regulation, forcing businesses to give loans (or in your example, give treatment). Even charities, the best method to handling cases where there is a need and private business does not take up the slack, will fill in when necessary, but not if everything is legislated to death.

    And I think states legislate “morality” in a very limited fashion based on what the POPULACE demands. The part of a free society that I think a lot of people forget is that you are free to move to a more liberal place. Like, umm, I’m NEVER going to California. Just sayin’.

  5. Either you believe in the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd and 10th Amendments, or you don’t. If the states have the right to overrule Federal drug laws, then certainly they have a right to overrule Federal Law on Abortion, which is in no way authorized by the Constitution to the Federal Government.

    Then again, most Federal Law is derived from the authorization to “regulate interstate commerce” which would also make moonshine a state issue, unless it crossed state lines.

    Health Insurance is also a state issue. Let the CA & NY people tax themselves all they want. TN & TX want to live free.

Leave a Reply