|
A defining characteristic of the United States is our federalist stance. Our model of government enables states (and sometimes territories) to have a partially autonomous legislative and legal system within the national structure. The relationship between the federal government and the states has been contentious from the start. Issues of constitutionality and morality are generally at the center of these debates.
This nuanced relationship between the federal regulations, laws and practices with the cultural differences in each state has shown to be tenuous and draining on our political system. Below there are two excerpts from online publications that highlight a historical and contemporary issue that provides additional context to this central question in American political institutions. Choose one and comment below answer the guiding questions. Marijuana Reform/ A Statement by - Ethan Nadelmann: The suggestion that reform of marijuana prohibition laws in the United States must start by focusing on federal and international law is simply an excuse for inaction. Federal law in this area will only change as a result of political pressures associated with changes in state laws. This does not mean that no efforts should be made to change federal and international laws, just that reforming state laws is an essential part of the political process by which federal and international marijuana prohibition laws will ultimately be reformed and repealed. Keep in mind too that this country has a long tradition of states serving as incubators for innovative policy reforms. Kevin makes two other mistakes in his commentary. It’s not true – although I wish it were – that "most places punish the use of small amounts of marijuana similarly to a speeding ticket." Few people are handcuffed or taken to a police station or incarcerated in a jail for speeding tickets, but all those indignities routinely are applied to people arrested for possession of small amounts of marijuana. Government employees won’t lose their jobs for a speeding ticket but they may very well for a marijuana possession arrest. Punishment can be even more severe if the person arrested is among the roughly five million Americans on parole or probation, often for very minor offenses. Millions of Americans have suffered much worse than the equivalent of a speeding ticket in recent years for nothing more than being caught with a little marijuana. As for the comparison with alcohol, the costs of alcohol abuse are so great in good part because alcohol can be a remarkably dangerous and destructive drug for a minority of consumers – much more so than marijuana. There is no basis to assume that the costs of marijuana misuse would be anything comparable to those of alcohol misuse if marijuana were made legally available. Ethan Nadelmann is Executive Director of the Drug Policy Alliance. Excerpt from: http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/09/marijuana-and-states-rights-a-reason-deb. Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) In Dred Scott v. Sandford (argued 1856 -- decided 1857), the Supreme Court ruled that Americans of African descent, whether free or slave, were not American citizens and could not sue in federal court. The Court also ruled that Congress lacked power to ban slavery in the U.S. territories. Finally, the Court declared that the rights of slaveowners were constitutionally protected by the Fifth Amendment because slaves were categorized as property. The controversy began in 1833, when Dr. John Emerson, a surgeon with the U.S. Army, purchased Dred Scott, a slave, and eventually moved Scott to a base in the Wisconsin Territory. Slavery was banned in the territory pursuant to the Missouri Compromise. Scott lived there for the next four years, hiring himself out for work during the long stretches when Emerson was away. In 1840, Scott, his new wife, and their young children moved to Louisiana and then to St. Louis with Emerson. Emerson died in 1843, leaving the Scott family to his wife, Eliza Irene Sanford. In 1846, after laboring and saving for years, the Scotts sought to buy their freedom from Sanford, but she refused. Dred Scott then sued Sanford in a state court, arguing that he was legally free because he and his family had lived in a territory where slavery was banned. In 1850, the state court finally declared Scott free. However, Scott's wages had been withheld pending the resolution of his case, and during that time Mrs. Emerson remarried and left her brother, John Sanford, to deal with her affairs. Mr. Sanford, unwilling to pay the back wages owed to Scott, appealed the decision to the Missouri Supreme Court. The court overturned the lower court's decision and ruled in favor of Sanford. Scott then filed another lawsuit in a federal circuit court claiming damages against Sanford's brother, John F.A. Sanford, for Sanford's alleged physical abuse against him. The jury ruled that Scott could not sue in federal court because he had already been deemed a slave under Missouri law. Scott appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reviewed the case in 1856. Due to a clerical error at the time, Sanford's name was misspelled in court records. (Excerpt from: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/landmark_dred.html) Guiding Questions
69 Comments
Travis Himebaugh
4/16/2014 04:05:53 pm
The needs of the many are not always the needs of the few. Make a rule preventing people from eating fish, and the people living by the coast are likely to become upset. That's the attitude that keeps federalism (a division of federal and state powers) in effect. This ideology is also another aspect of checks and balances, having (in my understanding) mostly begun as a preventative measure to distinguish these states from the British tyranny.
Joann truong
4/16/2014 05:07:06 pm
I like how you started your blog, very clever and it really caught my attention. I agree with what you’re saying about how federal has the rights in interfere and basically tell the states what they can and can’t do. Federal is higher than states, the federal can overpower states in a blink of an eye. I too agree that we should not underestimate people. I’ve always followed that saying “Never judge a book by it’s cover”.
Lars Velken
4/18/2014 02:12:39 pm
I agree with you point that the federal government should have the ability to interfere or inhibit state's rights to do certain things. While this does represent a pretty grey area, I believe if the federal government were to interfere in anything it would be in state's abilities to Withdraw rights from people, not a state's ability to grant rights to people. With that respect, the government would allow states to have as many or more human rights than the federal government, but would need their consent in limiting rights.
Brenda Rangel
4/19/2014 03:46:42 pm
I also agree that the federal government should have the ability to interfere on state’s rights in certain areas. The lack of definition in what areas they have the power to over step state’s rights, leaves too much room for the federal government to interfere whenever they see fit. The relation between the federal government and the states is a difficult one in terms of the federal government having a final say so, whether states agree or not; often states will act regardless. This type of relationship leaves little consent from states to the federal government authority.
Leslie Werle
4/20/2014 03:06:14 pm
I agree and disagree with you. I believe the federal government has too much power as a whole to dole out to the states. The federal government is here to protect our country from attack, deal with international trade, and a few other broad ideas but I don't believe they should have say in much else about people and areas they know nothing about personally. On the subject of laws about gay marriage and the legality of owning slaves, to me these aren't subjects that have to do with the government at all. I know it took the country having a civil war to figure out the issue of slavery but to me it's not equal rights, they are human rights, rights that no government has the right to take away from anyone! So I suppose I agree with you that a state does not have the right to make a law saying that any two people can not get married but I don't believe the federal government has that right either. I think all laws against human should be null and void because it's not an issue of rights that the government has to give or take away but are human rights we are born with and that no one has the right to take away from us.
Christopher
4/21/2014 05:11:25 pm
Though I agree with you that the issue of gay marriage should be an issue of human rights, it is unfortunate that unless there is legislation there to protect those rights, they wont be safe. I agree with you, ideologically; the government cannot confer human rights upon its citizens, these rights are inalienable, but it can make policy that ensures the securing of those rights. Beyond international trade and, "keeping us safe," (a complex role of our government with a dark and dubious history), I believe the government has many primary responsibilities to its citizenry (equal access to health care and education, providing jobs, ensuring a stable and balanced economy and distribution of wealth,etc.) not the least of which is ensuring that individuals' human rights are protected under law. I believe this is the responsibility of the Federal government. My two cents.
Eduardo Ruiz
4/21/2014 02:13:59 pm
I couldn’t agree with you more on this. States are given leeway when it comes to making up some of their own laws and then they turn around and try to do things to try and exclude certain races, religions, genders or sexuality and you think that maybe they shouldn’t have this power.
Theodore Libby
4/21/2014 03:18:37 pm
I really liked you post. I was hooked from the start and you really bring up some interesting points. I really liked the counter argument about the states and federalism, "what happens when a state decides a ban on slavery is against its own interests? What happens when a state decides that they want to outlaw certain forms of marriage?" This really made me thing about it in a whole new way!
Travis Himebaugh
4/22/2014 11:33:42 am
Feel compelled to respond to my own post, as I've had the niggling doubt as to whether or not I actually answered anything. I've gradually come to the realization (spurred by in-class discussion of the marijuana subtopic) that I overlooked some rather pointed questions.
Hello Travis Himebaugh,
Joann Truong
4/16/2014 05:01:21 pm
The purpose of state rights is to give the state rights and to limit the federal powers. I feel like the federal took control over state sovereignty. I feel like the states had no rights and no say in the case. I think the public played a huge role in the decision. The public would want a specific outcome and if the court didn’t grant it, there would be a riot or something like it. I feel like most of the time, the court basically rules the outcome depending on the audience. Since the case was something involving more than one state, I feel like that is the reason why the federal had to take control. The major debate was whether or not Dred Scott was a free man since he lived in a free state for some time. I learned that states really don’t have many rights when it comes to federal. Federal takes over the larger cases or cases they feel is necessary to take over. Federal takes over cases that they can make a rule out of. I think the Dred Scott decision was stupid. Who are they to say if someone can sue in a court? Americans of African descendants were declared not American citizens. So basically, if you’re not a citizen, you have no rights. It doesn’t matter if that person is free or a slave, they have no rights. The court came up with this ruling because they’re wrong and they’re at fault and don’t want to admit it and was going against Scott because he wasn’t white.
Imani Sanders
4/17/2014 05:24:02 am
I totally agree with what you have said. Unfortunately Scott was not given a fair chance due to the racial institution at the time. Most of the time, now that i reflect, the public does influence state laws and in addition creates these laws. So the laws reflect the culture of the state as well. Therefor, you were right on point in your statement.
Travis Himebaugh
4/20/2014 02:05:32 pm
I find that your post was well-written and well-argued, but my own personal beliefs run counter to yours- I believe that the state governments are in the wrong, i.e.., that they have begun overreaching themselves and we should turn to federal powers to become stricter. Not that I disrespect or in any way want to disparage your point of view!
Duc Doan
4/21/2014 04:50:27 am
i agree that Dred scott was not given a fair chance and that public really had a say in decision. That happens in some case in our society today. I think in society today, the federal should have more ruling because they are the people with more power. They should be able to handle cases like this because they are the one who protects the nation. The better the federal law becomes the better we are.
CYNTHIA YANG
4/21/2014 10:42:38 am
I agree that federal takes control of sovereignty. Federal has more control over the states when it comes down to the more serious stuff, they do have more say in political events. And the public does play a big role in decision making or even consent. The people choose who gets to govern them. They choose and voice theirs opinions and the government is suppose to follow their voices through into action.
Imani Sanders
4/17/2014 05:14:06 am
From the two excerpts I reason that the point of the purpose of states’ rights versus federal is to separate the two and to secure the fact the two won’t interfere with one another. States rights in contrary to federal law are created to maintain the ‘culture’ of that area with the laws the states see fit. Within the two excerpts state sovereignty and federal control displayed themselves in a stubborn friction-like manner. Where the two were not willing to neither heed to the others decision nor respect their decision. In the excerpts state law and federal laws were reversed and were determined to maintain their vision of what American ‘culture and values’, at the time, should be. The role that public entities and private capitalist interest play is a heavy role, within the laws of the state and federal government. Big business’s and entities alike will persuade politicians of what they want through numerous methods.
Jennifer Hernandez
4/17/2014 10:57:15 am
I agree that federal and state laws in a way do have an “on-going” war with each other regarding the differences in cases. What makes it even more complicated is also the way the society is structured in the many states as well as the public view. The environment of the state will most likely influence the way some cases will be solved. I also agree that private capitalist have something to do with swaying politicians as they do with modern society problems, like the health care issue. Many big health care insurance companies would pay politicians a given amount to sway away from any reform in health care policies or laws, depending on the popular vote among the legislators.
Michael Plaza
4/21/2014 04:14:53 pm
Imani, I agree that the culture of a certain state is portrayed by their laws that they deem are relative to what the state demands. You make a good point about the big businesses' have a hand in the decision making process of politicians. I am of the opinion that such entities should not be able to part of this process, and that politicians should be able to come to their own conclusions that are concurrent with what is needed by the people and what would make reasonable policy.
Cynthia Kay
4/17/2014 05:53:38 am
State rights in American politics per the Articles of Confederation in 1871, provided each state its own sovereignty, freedom and independence, required States to maintain friendship with each other, limited Congress from taxation, provided no Executive or Judicial government, and limited Congress from regulating commerce. This Article granted states with too much power resulting in chaos between the states and no financial stability. Due to its inefficiencies, the Articles of Confederation was short lived and subsequently replaced by the U.S. Constitution in 1787. The U.S. Constitution created a federal governing action that regulated interaction between the states and federal government, and between the states themselves, and the federal government requirements for foreign and military policy and national defense. It was the “law of the land” that defined the roles and responsibilities of each branch of government.
Jennifer Hernandez
4/17/2014 10:44:38 am
The purpose of state rights in American politics is to of course keep society organized by giving “equality” to the citizens within the states. If we didn't have state rights, society would seize to be organized the way it is now. Between the two excerpts on slave laws and laws regarding the restriction or use of marijuana I see that the federal powers are using their “sovereign “ powers to cover up the main problem just because the “state laws” state it or because they think is best. In a way they use different types of “Smoke screens” to divert from what is actually more reasonable. It is as if they are using their powers to their advantage because they were chosen to keep the state and federal laws in mandate. The main question in the marijuana case would be whether or not people who are found with a bit of use from the drug should be punished highly as oppose to other cases that seem more severe at hand as well as whether drug restrictions and boundaries should change. For the case regarding Dred Scott is whether he is allowed to be a free in a state where slavery is abolished. For both cases, the state laws seem to be of little importance. They try to take the problem with marijuana to a bigger scale dealing with international laws, when in fact it should be a state problem, then with Dred Scott they were debating whether he should be free or not and end up saying that it is the owners right only even though it is stated by law that he should be free. I don’t see the American politics any more indifferent than I already did looking at it from both perspectives. I see that some things seem to be of little or more importance. All I can say is that I learned that American politics has its flaws and based from the past to modern times it has changed a bit regarding some rights, but still seems to sway away from finding a better way to solve problems regarding state laws.
Kaylie Otsuka
4/17/2014 12:59:33 pm
Jennifer,
Kaylie Otsuka
4/17/2014 12:55:01 pm
State rights in American politics were designed to allow a distinct but equal separation between the states themselves and the federal government. I believe it was created to empower the state and their peoples as often times states disagree on certain topics. The text states, “…the states possess complete power over matters not delegated to the national government and not denied them by the U.S. Constitution or by their own state constitutions.” (Jillson, 67) In other words, the state is entitled responsible for all internal issues that do not constrict the U.S. Constitution. Originally, “…constitutionalism and limited government laid open the possibility that within a single territory there might be two sets of governments and two sets of public officials assigned clear and specific responsibilities and powers through written constitutions” (Jillson,64). However, when these “two sets” of representation collide, the federal government tends to reign over the state, in contrast of its original purpose.
Elizabeth Avalos
4/17/2014 06:39:00 pm
The purpose that state laws serve in American politics is the reassurance that the states and the people have inalienable rights, which have been conceded to them by the United States Constitution. State rights can otherwise be defined as political powers that have been granted, or better yet reserved, for the state governments instead of being granted to the federal government. State rights allow states to create and implement laws that best fit each state independently. This allows a better sense of freedom amongst citizens who have the option of living in the state that best caters to their needs and cultures. In the Marijuana Reform excerpt the debate over state sovereignty and federal control is clearly displayed in a finger-pointing manner. What I mean by this is that instead of taking the initiative to change drug laws, both sides are leaving it up to the other side to reform and repeal marijuana prohibition laws, from my understanding. I think public entities and private interests play a significant role in the decision making regarding federal or state control because they possess the power to influence the decision-making process. Perhaps the key moral question presented in this particular excerpt would be whether marijuana use is unfairly being treated as a more offensive crime than other minor offenses, such as a speeding ticket, for example. Why must the consequence for being caught in small possession of marijuana be handcuffs, while speeding only results in a ticket? This particular issue regarding state rights and federal control has proven that flaws exist within both systems, and that as long as each system waits for the other to initiate change, everything will remain the same: flawed.
Nico Passalacqua
4/18/2014 07:29:51 am
I appreciate the discussion offered about the moral question of marijuana. I find it hard to agree with the rules about marijuana in some instances. I believe they should be held to the same standards as alcohol is, if anything, less severe. Alcohol is a much more dangerous substance and it should be treated as so. Both systems will always remain the same because they both resist change. Great work.
David Perez
4/20/2014 03:25:55 pm
In regards to the Marijuana excerpt, I agree with the statement saying that private interests play a significant role in the decision making process. I also agree with the statement you have made saying that as long as each system awaits for the other to initiate change, everything will remain flawed. Overall this is a great post. Keep it up!
Armando Arzate
4/18/2014 03:20:29 am
Although, the federal government has a significant amount or nearly absolute power; the “State” also has rights in order to protect itself and address its’ people. The state helps regulate or limit the federal power; to some extent helps create this “checks and balances” concept that we see with the three branches of government. In the Marijuana Reform excerpt/statement by Ethan Nadelmann we see a current issue that is greatly disputed between federal and state laws in the United States. Although, it is a crime at a federal level to have even the smallest amount of marijuana in certain states such as Washington, Denver, etc. it is completely legal and as for other states like California it is somewhat in the grey area not being completely legal for recreational purposes but still legal. I believe that “we the people” need to actually become aware of certain topics such as Marijuana and not only be “blinded” or limited to what the federal government wants us to believe. Marijuana is a drug which the federal government have at the same level as cocaine, meth, heroin and much more however, in reality one cannot overdose on marijuana and one is not as easily impaired as alcohol. I honestly believe if we were to educate ourselves and go out to vote or speak up we can make a difference not only on a state level but also a federal level as they would feel the pressure of the people. There is much more going on in the government than what we even know. I find it amazing how the United States has far less people then other countries however; we have the most people imprisoned in the whole world. Could it be that our federal and state laws need to be more lenient? I believe that the rich ultimately do influence the laws and decisions the government takes. In regards to the marijuana reform, I believe the big fish, the wealthy people of the country, or even government itself sees more money in the black market then actually making the drug legal on a federal level. But we will never make a change if we as people do not speak up and educate ourselves.
Farkhanda
4/20/2014 02:15:27 pm
I can see why the government has both state and federal to limit the power of one or there if it gets too powerful. I definitely agree with you that we the people have the capability to change our laws if we stand up against the rules that we don't agree with. The elites do have majority of the power because they influence our decisions and laws we pass. Good points on this topic!
Duc Doan
4/21/2014 04:55:06 am
Very interesting. Yes i agree with you on most points. The people should stand up for what they believe in and not get brainwashed by the government. Marijuana is not in the same category as cociaine and etc. Yet the government wants people to believe that so they don't use it. Yet if they legalized marijuana naturally, it could be a billion dollar business and the economy may get better. But its the people in with money and power that really rule this country. It is going to be hard to change that because money talks and power walks.
Duc Doan
4/18/2014 05:30:20 am
State rights in American politics is define as a power given to the state in order to limit the power the Central government has. In the two excerpts that we read, the whole point of that is that the state has its own rulings and the federal people has it owns. They want to make sure that they don’t interfere with each other that’s why there was different cases filed in state and federal court. In this case I feel like the state did not have its own ruling and power. The federal court was able to overturn things that they feel they wanted to. The public played a huge role here because the court probably sided with public opinion. They do not want to cause and uproar here because they want to be popular among the public. This is kind of what happens in today’s society. Major debate in the two excerpts was whether or not Dred Scott was a free man since he lived in a free state. Through state ruling he was granted the freedom. But through federal ruling he was not granted the free man that he wanted to be and suppose to be. In the other excerpt the debate was states are making marijuana changes, why does the federal not want to change the marijuana laws. Through these particular issues I learned that no matter what the state rule, the fed can always overrule because they have more powers. Power is everything in the United States; once you have that power you can do anything. People with power get away with things that people without powers don’t. The country runs on this power system they have, the more powers you have the more things you can do.
Jose Dominguez
4/18/2014 06:16:59 am
The American Government has power dividend into the federal government and the state government. The purpose of separating the power into both governments was so that the federal government can operate at a national level without being bombarded with little problems that could be solved within the state itself. The state government is allowed to make laws that are relevant or wanted for that state. Some states have made marijuana legal and those states have the right to make it lawful because of federalism: Just because a states passes a law does not mean that the federal governments approves of that law. In the end federal has more power than states and can overrule and verdict a state court says. So then what is the point of dividing powers if one group has more say? If all the states start passing the same law, though, the federal government would basically have no choice but to pass the law at a national level. The legalization of marijuana is a hard concept for some people to see. What kind of nation would we look like making weed legal? Does legalizing weed promote the use of hardcore drugs like cocaine or meth? The federal government has made alcohol legal which has been proven to do more damage to your body than marijuana. I do not think that our country will get damaged from the legalization of marijuana. I believe it will help improve our country’s health issues and economy. Sates’ rights of weed will keep getting overpowered by the federal regulations because they have more supremacy. American politics still needs improvement.
Leon Fraser
4/18/2014 08:09:12 am
I agree, the federal government does not have time to deal with small things when the states can deal with them since the federal government has to deal with national problems which was a good idea but the federal will eventually have more power then the states since they approve of the law and in my opinion sometimes i think they approve of certain laws because they do not really care, which is why i feel that they made marijuana legal in certain states but our political system reminds me of a king ruling a nation but our government do need some improvement and holes in them.
Julia Miranda
4/18/2014 07:14:20 am
The purpose of state rights was given in the 5th Amendment of the Constitution to not give the national government all of the power and to reserve it for the states or the people. There was debate over state sovereignty in the Dred Scott V Sandford case. Dred Scott was considered a slave in certain states, but not in others due to being property. Although he lived in a “free” state, he was not able to be represented in a federal court because he wasn’t a citizen, due to the fact that he was still considered property even though he tried to buy his freedom from Sandford. State citizen rights allowed a slave owner to move their slaves to a “free” state regardless of popular sovereignty until we went to war with ourselves. The Chief justice thought that each state should be able to decide whether or not a state should be for or against slavery or “(human) property rights.” The moral questions about this case are endless starting with why considering people as property was ever okay. Or how Dred Scott couldn’t qualify as an American citizen because he was black even if he did live in a “free” state. Or how people couldn’t be considered natural born citizens even if they were born in America until the Dred Scott case was overturned by the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendment.
Nico Passalacqua
4/18/2014 07:23:05 am
In American political discourse, states’ rights refers to political powers reserved for the U.S. state governments rather than the federal government according to the United States Constitution, particularly reflecting the enumerated powers of Congress and the Tenth Amendment. Our model of government enables states to have a partially autonomous legislative and legal system within the national structure. “Federal law in this area will only change as a result of political pressures associated with changes in state laws,” is an example of the debate over state sovereignty and federal control regarding the prohibition of marijuana. The supremacy of federal law and the invalidation of a U.S. state law when it conflicts with federal law are the center pieces for this discussion. Supremacy is best explained as the scenario where federal law should always trump state law. Federal supremacy explains that when state and federal law share legislative jurisdiction, federal law defines the criteria. Therefore, marijuana is illegal in America. With regards to morality, in my opinion, society has an interest in promoting a certain set of behaviors, one centered on productivity. I am not demeaning the use of marijuana, because there are significant medical purposes that call for its use, but there is a stigma of laziness attached to it. From researching marijuana reform and doing prior work on the subject for a Law class, American politics is constantly evolving. The situation regarding marijuana is a very unique one.
Jesse Smith
4/18/2014 11:35:00 am
I found your comment toward the end particularly interesting, about marijuana use having a stigma of laziness attached to it, as well as society placing a profound importance on productivity and effort. It was a line of thought I had not ever considered, and I find that when considering the issue from that new perspective, it's rather accurate. Personally I don't pay much attention to marijuana use, nor ever really considered any of the qualities associated with people who use it. What's more, though, is I had never really stopped to think just how much of our society really is based around efficiency. Fast cars or cars with very high MPG ratings are some of the most marketed items, or items that are high quality and will last a long time, they're all measures of efficiency.
Leon Fraser
4/18/2014 08:02:34 am
Our federal government is in charge of situations that is a national base situation, leaving our federal government to be in more power then the states power. Our states government focuses more on subnational situation that only focus on problems in the state. Although the states may pass laws, the federal government must first approve of the laws that are being past, so the state has power under a certain extent. Our political system was structured this way to give order but in reality I feel like it is no different from a king ruling. In the states, citizens are able to vote and have their voice heard for the state to make this law but if the federal government did not want a certain law to be passed they have the power to knock it down.
Cynthia Kay
4/20/2014 11:19:46 am
While I agree with you Leon about legalizing marijuana, I believe calling it a "safe substance" is a misnomer. Yes, the physiological effects from Marijuana certainly may not compare to that of methamphetamine or heroin, science has proven that the THC in marijuana does negatively effect the brain and the inhalation of smoke effects the lungs but science has not yet concluded that it leads to use of other drugs. However, I am of the belief that it should be made legal, or an infraction at best for possession on the federal level. Billions of dollars are wasted each year for narcotic enforcement pertaining to marijuana, ie, grow houses, cultivation eradication, etc.; money that could certainly be used elsewhere.
Frank Arredondo
4/18/2014 08:49:10 am
The purpose of states rights is to really over see the laws and create laws for the area within they occupy. Now though that is the purpose it was interesting to follow how Dred Scott case played out. The case was completed in the state court system, but the Sandford family decided to take the case to the Supreme Court of Missouri. This was now where the federal court came into play. By this happening it created a larger debate of when can the federal government step in and over sea a case or actually when can they not. It seem that the federal courts only take on cases that have major headline attention, and when they decided they really go against what the people from the state level agree with. So is it possible that the states really don’t have rights, but are rather used by the federal government. The main reason this is asked is because the federal courts do not step in when they feel like there is no need, but when they do step in they totally override what was either voted on or ruled by the state level. Nonetheless we know how different the United States is culturally. We know the Deep South is far different then the Bay Area, so how can the federal government come in and make a verdict on something. This is a large question raised by when they step in. What I have come to I don’t know about learned, but observed was the federal government can really over step the states rights if they wanted. So I wonder does the state really have any rights?
Leslie Werle
4/18/2014 08:56:06 am
When the United States government was first formed the rights of the states were very important. Our fore fathers had overthrown a King who taxed them without representation or benefit. A representative government was set up with the hopes that the federal government would not dictate local law. A federal government was important for our country to have a consistent form of defense for the nation, over all laws and for commerce (especially with foreign entities) but more importantly than that was the need for a local government who understood the customs and nuances of its people. State rights are there to protect that local community and their needs that may differ from different states.
Michael Plaza
4/18/2014 10:03:13 am
The purpose of state rights in American politics is to ensure that the states in the United States maintain some power in their own governing. This is because each state has some kind of unique culture within itself. This state identity can be traced back to when America as we know it was a confederation, in which the states minded their own business for the most part but still had each others backs. The Marijuana Reform article by Ethan Nadelmann brings up how states making changes themselves plays a pivotal part in what gets repealed or reformed by the government as a whole, this is apparent to us by the fact that in some states, such as Washington and Colorado, Marijuana is already legal for people who are over 21, much like how alcohol is regulated. Even here in California we can see a movement towards legalization of the plant, because Californians are utilizing marijuana in such a manner that it is referred to as having medical purposes and benefits. Some of the moral questions called into play by the article revolve around the fact that a small amount of marijuana can get a person into far more trouble than what is logically reasonable. Ethan states, " Government employees won’t lose their jobs for a speeding ticket but they may very well for a marijuana possession arrest. Punishment can be even more severe if the person arrested is among the roughly five million Americans on parole or probation, often for very minor offenses." Is it morally acceptable for somebody's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness to be eviscerated by an offense that is, when thought upon with common sense, treated with unreasonable punishments. Ethan also makes points about how alcohol can have a much more devastating effect on consumers than marijuana. States are already in the process of rebelling against the legality of marijuana in their own domains, and from what I can tell I don't think that those states have been negatively affected by the change, nor have they come down with any kind of "reefer madness."
Jesse Smith
4/18/2014 11:24:29 am
In American politics, state rights were written into the Constitution in an attempt to overcome the failures of the two major types of government that had existed in the past: unitary governments and confederations. Unitary governments lacked representation of the people, instead being monarchies or oligarchies, while confederations were fragile. When tensions rose or circumstances turned sour, the loose affiliations of confederations tended to fail.[1] In addition to overcoming past failures, state rights also serve to allow individual states to create legislation tailored specifically to their unique situations. For instance, it makes far more sense for a state like California, with its expansive farmland, to handle matters regarding agriculture in the state in their own legislature rather than having the decision be made at the national level, where it would be debated and influenced by those not as intimately familiar with its specific circumstances.
David Perez
4/18/2014 12:20:24 pm
States have very limited power when it comes down to very controversial topics. States serve as a “volunteer” to the federal government by trying new laws that the federal government wishes to see the effects within one state. In the excerpt regarding marijuana, some states have made the use of marijuana legal. Some states that label the drug as illegal do not comply with other states punishment policy. I feel as if public entities play a huge role in the legalization of marijuana because certain states have public figures that support and or are against it. Private capitalists play an even bigger role because if someone is willing to financially invest in the whole states legalization, the state is more likely to pass the motion. Just like a private capitalist investing in a new NBA arena in a new area, if there’s enough money invested in the effort, it will go through as planned. This example is much like the private capitalists who invest in marijuana. The major moral questions in the excerpt are whether someone who is arrested for marijuana should be fined that of a speeding ticket. After researching the legalization of marijuana within states, I have found that many states have started the process to legalize marijuana. States who have legalized it have found an increased income of local and state taxes. They have also found that there has been a decrease in crime since the legalizing marijuana. There have also been negative things that have happened since the legalization, the authorities have found people getting to high on the drug and driving and causing accidents.
Alvin Luna
4/18/2014 02:48:30 pm
I didn't know that states had an increase in taxes due to the legalization of marijuana. I also found it surprising that there was a decrease in crime. The last part about the negative impact seems logical, it's not that big a deal but it happens. Overall it feels that there are more positives than negatives on the legalization.
Elizabeth Avalos
4/21/2014 04:53:22 am
Hi David,
Michael Plaza
4/21/2014 04:07:52 pm
David, you make good points about how public figures play an instrumental role in decisions of such matters as the legalization of marijuana. Although you bring up the interests of private capitalists and their role in the legalization, not limited to ones as aforementioned by you . I think that private entities of such posit a heavy influence on what a public figure may or may not consider in making decisions on matters such as this.
Christopher
4/18/2014 01:09:21 pm
State rights are those rights granted to individual states that give them power over matters regarding their internal affairs, powers that do not conflict with the US Constitution. The purpose of this is to give states agency in determining how to govern themselves up to, but not exceeding, matters that are strictly denied by the US Constitution. Whether or not decisions made by the state regarding state law and governance are at odds with our national policy has always been a matter of contention. In California’s fight for marijuana reform, the state has legalized medical marijuana but according to the federal government marijuana is still a class 1 drug with no legitimate use and a high potential for abuse. This has meant that while the state condones (to a certain extent) the production of medical marijuana, the federal government often raids farms and small businesses. Part of the larger issue, as the article we read describes, is that current US drug laws have huge impacts on California’s current crisis of mass incarceration. Outdated drug policies contribute to many Americans (predominantly People of Color who are targeted and arrested at much higher rates than their white counterparts, even though studies show that the rate at which they use drugs is, if anything, lower) being arrested and serving jail time over minor drug violations and first-time offences. Special interest lobbyists working for companies and unions whose profits are directly tied to the building, maintaining, and running of prisons lobby government officials to maintain current drug policy in order to keep incarceration rates high, thus providing jobs and income for said businesses in what has come to be known as the Prison Industrial Complex. At the heart of marijuana reform is a much broader question about the future of the war on drugs and, in specific, unjust and unfair drug policy that targets communities of color (and increasingly more women). This is not simply about whether we should be allowed to smoke weed or not, although that is part of it, the stakes are much higher.
Alvin Luna
4/18/2014 02:41:19 pm
The purpose of state rights in American politics is a way to divide power and give states something to call their own. They have their own freedom and it is a way to keep everything organized and have some sort of equality among all the states. The marijuana article focuses on how changes are made by the states' themselves. This is mostly due to popular demand. Marijuana has become frequently used and it has it's share of crossroads. However, it has been proven to do more good than harm, hence why laws are beginning to change in different states.Moral questions being raised are is it fair that you can go to jail for marijuana possession? You can potentially injure or even kill someone if you;re speeding and not careful. That's not the case with marijuana, excluding the actions you take part in while under the influence, you aren't harming anyone with marijuana. Another question would be, why is alcohol legal and marijuana isn't? Alcohol has proven to kill and marijuana hasn't been proven to yet? Why is that? Maybe because it's actually safer. Ethan Nadelmann stated that the effects of each can't be compared to each other yet, since marijuana hasn't been made legal worldwide. I agree with that because you can't make an assumption off a small percentage. I learned that although something may seem corrupt, there is a possibility of changing it if enough people believe that they can. It may take some time but it is possible.
Eduard Martinez
4/18/2014 02:55:36 pm
State rights are individuals to adopt laws or rules then other states. State rights converts other states different from another. It was adopted in 1819, in a supreme court address as McCulloch v. Maryland. Public's opinion can be either controversy or can be pro about the opinion. However, private can affect a law that is being passed due to private companies profiting other public campaigns to get reelected. Marijuana is a medicine for people that has stress or glaucoma. U.S needs to gain profits of this plant. They heed of the money flow going around. Of course who doesn't want a piece of an investment. In the short article "Marijuana Reform/A Statement by - Ethan Nadelman", he discusses that a dope of marijuana is a worst offense in a court ruling than a alcohol offense. Its roughly to state that research sides with marijuana due to the lack of side effects than alcohol.
Cynthia Yang
4/18/2014 03:14:29 pm
The state rights are political powers belonging to the states/people. According to state sovereignty, it has the supreme power to make and carry out laws though there’s more to what they can do. The federal law will only act upon the use of marijuana when they’re forced or obligated to, otherwise, not so much. The consequences to the use of marijuana illegally are being treated like other consequences such as speeding tickets. Though on record, marijuana looks ten times worse compared to a speeding ticket. Federal control violates the states’ power so on the other hand, the federal law only reacts to solutions when they’re put into a lot of pressure. Public entities and private interest effect federal/state control by government giving people what they want. One of the questions that popped into my mind was according to the last paragraph of the marijuana article. Why is alcohol legal but considered more dangerous compared to the use to marijuana? Taking in a certain amount of alcohol can cause collisions and many deaths and it’s legal for ages twenty-one and over is allowed to buy these beverages. What I learned is that even though the state gives people the power to sell marijuana and have marijuana, but it’s still illegal to the federal government. The federal government has the right to arrest and charge anyone who possess or sell marijuana.
Tikerea Tate
4/20/2014 04:46:53 pm
Hello Cynthia,
Shahleha Rufina
4/18/2014 03:21:49 pm
Eduardo Ruiz
4/18/2014 03:28:25 pm
The purpose of state rights is to reduce the power of the federal government and to allow some of that power to fall on to the states themselves. In the battle of Scott v. Sanford, Scott took his case for freedom to one level of court to another all the way up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Sanford because by Missouri law was deemed a slave and therefore property. I believe that there may have been some capitalist involvement within the state laws involved in this case, because if African Americans were free then larger companies would lose a lot of free labor and lose much of their profits. Many people already believed that slavery was wrong and immoral but the federal government had to allow those states to make their own laws no matter how unjust it may seem, until the full civil war over it.
Leslie Ann Ong
4/21/2014 03:53:51 am
Though evident now, I never thought about capitalist involvement in slavery. Another point I agree with is how states can get away with passing laws despite the Federal government declaring an act illegal, as seen in the debate over marijuana legalization. Further, I feel marijuana is gearing towards legalization, even more states are allowing usage of the drug.
Frank Arredondo
4/21/2014 10:16:48 am
Eduardo,
Lars Velken
4/18/2014 03:32:50 pm
In Ethan Nadelmann’s excerpt about marijuana law reform, the role of state’s rights in relation to American politics is to illustrate a transition of legality into majority recognized acceptability. The purpose of the state’s law is to represent its individual people, and adhere to expectations of the republic. Therefor, if a state’s majority reflects positive public opinion to marijuana consumption, but those beliefs don’t reflect that of the federal government or the majority of U.S. citizens, their specific laws can be passed at a smaller state level, so that they can gain awareness across the nation over a longer period of time. The federal government in my opinion would grand its citizens the most natural legal development by not inhibiting state’s sovereignty and ability to grand more rights.
Armando Arzate
4/20/2014 11:39:02 pm
Your post is well written and thought out. I agree with many of your key points regarding not only marijuana but your concept that we may influence our state, which will then ultimately influence the federal law. I believe marijuana will become legal at some point in the future. The reason being that many people are seeing the health benefits it produces and it is also becoming a bit more accepting. When it becomes accepted it will later become engraved or part of our society just like alcohol. Later, there will be bills or laws that will try and make marijuana once again illegal however, people will refute and retaliate just like they did in the prohibition era regarding alcohol.
Farkhanda Omar
4/18/2014 03:38:13 pm
No matter what kind of government it is- local, state, or federal their jobs are to provide assistance and protection for its citizens. This type of "federalist" system was developed in order to limit power, and minimize corruption. In consideration of the roles they each play, the federal government, I believe has the most say since it has the most power and authority than the rest.
Karishma Khatri
4/21/2014 01:11:11 pm
I agree with your argument. I find it interesting when state and federal laws conflict with each other. Local, state, and federal governments should work in the interest of its constituents. Unfortunately, most of the time, we find this constant power struggle. Many of my high school teachers stated a state law cannot contradict a federal law. If it does, it is not considered a law. As you pointed out, there is the problem with marijuana. This war on drugs may not be working.
Tikerea Tate
4/18/2014 04:12:40 pm
The purpose of state rights is to give states rights to be able to make laws for the individual state. State rights are important because every state is different and deserves different laws. State sovereignty and federal control becomes debatable when Scott was moved into another state that did not have slavery. It is debatable because the slave owners moved to another state and when they moved they were trying to bend the rules, which was not fair. The public entities role in making decisions about the federal or state control is big because they vote on the laws being created. The public is more important than they realize. The major moral questions presented is if slavery was really free in the states like Wisconsin. Something that I learned about american politics is that when laws are made there are always exceptions. When the laws are made there will never be a steady yes or no answer for it being broken. I also learned that american politics do what they want at the end of the day. I say this because in the Dred Scott vs. Standford case Scott should have been allowed to sue because he was no longer a slave in the state where he lived.
Karishma Khatri
4/18/2014 04:41:02 pm
State rights help form state governments, and help limit federal power. In other words, it’s an ideology of checks and balances. No one entity has complete power. All of the authority is limited. If we did not have state rights, then the federal government would completely be in power. Also, state rights allow for local governments and local officials to have some legislative power. Both of the excerpts are challenges that we still face today. Dred Scott v. Sandford clearly shows the discrepancies between state and federal rules. The state ruling made no difference to the federal ruling. It seems like the territory law, that slaves are banned, not event considered. The federal ruling took control for this case. Unfortunately, I think private interest did play a big role in the ruling. It was a majority rule. Slavery was unfortunately considered a “normal” thing. Discrimination against another human being wasn’t frowned upon from the majority. This is where morality comes in as well. How could the American government consider another citizen property? Did the government believe in the white supremacy? Why shouldn’t African Americans get the same chance to be free? African Americans were citizens as much as the white slave owners. I learned there have been many ups and downs in the American history. We are still not out of the woods yet. Still today there is not equality for all. There is a history of discrimination from the government. First African Americans, then woman, then the LGBT community were discriminated with government policies.
Bree Hart
4/21/2014 04:41:45 pm
Your post was very well written and very interesting to read. I also feel the same way about the federal and state powers. Your last few sentences about African Americans being slaves and white supremacy really spoke to me. I think the government should wake up and realize nobody is actually equal in this country. The person next to you doesn't have the same rights you have, its unfair. It's really upsetting that they still don't see this. If United States citizens were actually equal, everyone would have the same rights and be able to do the things they want. I hope in the near future the LGBT community gets the equality they truly deserve, as well as other citizens in this country. 4/18/2014 04:55:58 pm
1. Define the purpose of state rights in American politics?
Leslie Ann Ong
4/18/2014 04:59:07 pm
In American politics, state rights are reserved powers for states in which the Federal government can not tamper. From reading the Marijuana reform excerpt, I realized the definition of "state rights" is more complex than textbook definitions, because in reality, both powers display some interference with one another. In example, Ethan Nadelmann establishes how marijuana reform on a Federal level will only take effect in result of the pressures of state laws. Furthermore, the Dred Scott v. Sanford case exemplifies how Federal and state boundaries cross on a judicial platform. Although the state court legally declared Scott free, the Supreme Court overturned the state's decision. Not only did Scott lose his case, he lost his freedom due to the fact the Missouri Supreme Court declared Scott as a slave.
Jose Dominguez
4/20/2014 01:25:41 pm
Leslie,
Bree Hart
4/19/2014 03:21:27 pm
State rights are suppose to reflect the things the population of the state really wants, and what the state representatives feel is best for the state and the people. Although a lot of people feel as if state representatives don't actually do what is best for the state or the people, it is hard for all states to hear everyone's opinion on topics because of so many people and too big of states.
Eduardo Martinez
4/21/2014 03:31:45 pm
Simply everyone recognize the Marijuana reform due to numerous of supporters or people against it address to it everyday. State laws basically address or adopt laws in very small issue.I was reading an article about that why state laws should prevail on federal laws due to state laws apply sufficient amount of laws. However, the government thought this though over for the state not being more powerful than the government. This was doctrine was called the Supremacy Clause.
Brenda Rangel
4/19/2014 04:06:36 pm
The ability for state rights are to empower the states in acting in the benefit of the people they govern because often the federal government are not fully aware of what individual states require; while this serves as a limit on the powers of the federal government. While this may be the case, we often experience the federal government stepping on the rights of states, especially those that are not in agreement with their views. The role of the court often sides with the federal government depending on the issues at hand. In the case of Dred Scott, the issue was rooted in the ideology that African Americans place in society was in slavery; here the court was expected to determine whether Scott was a “free” man or not. With an issue such as this one, the court would not only rule on the side of the federal government but with the norms of the time. Through the court system that is charged with interpreting the laws of the land are utilized by the federal government to assert their power over the states. The ruling in the Dred Scott case, was rooted in the idea that African Americans could not utilize the court system because they were not considered “citizens”; many of these individuals were born in the country, yet we questioned their right to be treated as a citizen? This case empowered slave owners by affirming that individuals such as Dred Scott had no rights or resources due to the lack of recognition that they were citizens; this can be seen today when dealing with “illegal” immigrants, again the question goes back to who are we to determine who has the right to be “American”?
Karishma Khatri
4/21/2014 01:17:54 pm
I like the point you made. State’s have rights for a reason. If the federal government disagrees, does that give them a right to step on a states interests? Does the federal government know what each state wants? Every state is very diverse and their views may not be the same as the federal government.
James Willoughby
4/20/2014 03:24:28 pm
The purpose of having state rights is to stop a state issue from being examined by the federal government. Its purpose is so that a state does not have to concede to federal law. In the Dred Scott excerpt, the federal law declared slavery as legal but the territorial/state law said the opposite. State sovereignty was shown, in the Dred Scott vs. Sanford, when the state declared Scott a free man in 1850. Federal control was displayed when the federal jury declared that Scott could not sue in Federal Court after the state decision was overturned. The major moral question for these excerpts would be, how can a state or federal government review a case, and see the damages done to a person, and rule in favor of the abuser? Another question would be, why is our federal government so corrupt? As a California State citizen, I have seen a bit of corruption but not as much of it compared to the federal government. American politics has changed. It has changed because its unmoral content has become more subliminal compared to the discrimination adoring the conception of America and the federal and state governments. This excerpt shows me that American politics is corrupt and it is not in favor of its citizens, the way we are led to believe. The Government is supposed to be a leadership for the people and by the people. Instead, it dismisses real criminals and issues and destroys the lives of people that are innocent or have made very small mistakes that can be forgiven.
Theodore Libby
4/21/2014 03:13:21 pm
The purpose of state rights is to ensure the federal government can’t have too much power over them. With our state laws every piece of legislation would be a nation rule. This would work in some cases like slavery but, in most others, I feel it would hinder the wellbeing of the people. I think the two above excerpts displayed two things. The first is that the states have the power to change national law by making their own rules showing the national government up as it were. The second is how the national government can be wrong as showed by the Dred Scott case. I think public entities and private interests play a big part in our government and that is a good thing to a point. They have every right to voice an opinion, or take a side. It’s when big companies start paying lawmakers to legislate based on their ideal that I feel it goes too far. I feel the major moral question here is the value of federal laws or how far reaching they are. There is a national law that says marijuana is an illegal drug but, now Washington and Colorado have disagreed with others to follow. What does that say about the federal law? Leave a Reply. |
POSC 1201
This blog is meant for POSCI 1201 students at California State University - East Bay. ArchivesCategories |
RSS Feed