States Rights/Federalism - Historical & Contemporary Context
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of the political process by which federal and international marijuana prohibition laws will ultimately be reformed and repealed.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 slave owners 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)
Requirements for BLOG POSTS
26 Comments
Aaron Onia
9/17/2014 02:12:55 am
Response to: Marijuana Reform/ A Statement by – Ethan Nadelmann
Reply
Courtney Broussard
9/18/2014 01:50:26 pm
I agree with you ideas on what changes need to be made at weed dispensaries. Some local places Oakland and Berkeley have been shut down, striped away of everything and they have so many people counting on their business. Its very smart for our state to create their own regulations on the marijuana. Letting the federal government know we don't need help policing our citizens, which could further help us make state laws on other issues.
Reply
Alex Diaz
9/19/2014 04:54:02 pm
Yes, absolutely. If I'm not mistaken I believe the constitution said that states could create there own laws and regulations and if the majority of population or other states saw it as a threat then the federal government could take initiative. This is not the case in the documentation it said that 50% favored marijuana while 46% did not. This shows the power that the federal government now has and I personally believe that the impact of the federal government should not influence its civilians as much as it does. Seeing people get busted and arrested or having houses raided causes fear and shows a negative view of marijuana.
Reply
Sharon Clark
9/22/2014 09:21:37 am
to be honest the use of marijuana is off the hook, and i am not a big fan of it. to some extent i think it can be a social drugs but not an everyday drug, because then it leaves room for dependency. once dependency occurs then come more money then comes the spread of the drug.so now you talking beyond legal use, it then turns into a bad habit so don't get hook is my recommendation.
Reply
Sorasak Prasertsri
9/18/2014 07:44:32 am
Marijuana Reform
Reply
Kim Shaw
9/19/2014 02:51:38 pm
I agree if marijuana is illegal then the government makes money. They make money by sending people to prison for have marijuana in their possession and/or selling it. The more people locked up the more money is made. As with any debate there are pros and cons, so legalizing marijuana is definitely no different. Right now it appears that the government is benefiting from marijuana being illegal.
Reply
Juan Flores-Rodriguez
9/18/2014 12:54:21 pm
In the debate between Kevin Sabet and Ethan Nadelman, when discussing Marijuana reform in Colorado, both argued the tradeoffs between legalizing marijuana, the cost to society, and how it conflicts with federal law.
Reply
Deante Climon
9/18/2014 03:12:17 pm
Man that is absolutly correct. illegalization of marijuana is really to target African american and Latinos. it is known that someone did pump large amounts of drugs into the urban cities after the civil rights movement. ever since then america has had a war on drugs. its true as well the most populated prisons are for small time drug users and dealers. if we take a look at who owns the prisons and how the laws are set up, a drug such as marijuana made illegal can also make as much money as if it was legal. not just from street distribution, but the prosecutions that come with the drug itself. even though its like a speeding ticket, you still have to pay for your ticket, or you will have a warrent out for your arrest. Thats how they get people as well. and If you look at how the prison were set up, when slavery was abolished, lots of african american (freed slave) had no where to go and were hanging out on street corners. and when law enforcment seen these freed slaves hanging out on corners, they would lock them up, put them on the chain gain, and they would produce goods for the society. this is how there will always be slavery.
Reply
9/18/2014 01:01:51 pm
In the marijuana reform statement issue, I really agree with Ethan on his counter statement to Nick. Its almost as people/nation make marijuana out to be this trouble opium. That is toxic for Americans to indulge in. Frankly, I just don't understand why. clearly there isn't enough factual reasoning behind the government, for making marijuana illegal. Rumor has it that the law wasn't passed because the legislators lied and said marijuana was a dangerous plant that is harmful to Americans. Since when?
Reply
Annette Thomas
9/19/2014 11:22:57 am
Alcohol and tabaco companies believe they can run the market on recreational substances and have to money to purchase the power the same way they use their money to buy scientific “results” showing their products in a good light. Because of their greed individuals who would benefit from the medicinal indications of marijuana have to suffer, even in states where it is deemed legal. Which is another thing I don’t understand, how can the federal government enforce laws a state has ratified? The corruption in our political world needs to be dealt with so citizen can be free.
Reply
Dulce Fajardo
9/19/2014 02:04:43 pm
I agree with you, there is no convincing argument that the government could put up stating that marijuana is a harmful drug. If anything, its legalization would increase the governments revenue since they would be able to tax it. I also think about all those people incarcerated because of marijuana and how all that money wasted on jails could go towards education for example.
Reply
Kim Shaw
9/19/2014 02:43:05 pm
I agree that the government is very greedy. If it is not for profit to the government chances are it won’t happen. However as soon as the government sees that they can benefit from it then everything changes. I as well believe in the very near future the issue will be approved.
Reply
Deante Climon
9/18/2014 02:45:54 pm
The federal government has a zero tolorence when it comes to drugs. I believe it has to deal with how it gets into the country and how it is distributed on the streets. As for Marijuana, it does have a street vaule of millions on non taxable dollars that the federal government has no control over and from my understanding the government does not like not having control over anything so this could be a reason why they outlaw marijuana. marijuana itself can cut into the production of medicine. many American patients with disabilities outsource other medicinenal alternatives instead of taking pills. cotton has been one of the major productions america has had since slavery. eventhough cotton has been made for clothes and other uses, people are starting to use hemp which is also a natural resouce. marijuana is another way to opress people as well. their are already strugling addicts on heavier drugs, but somehow they continue to preach that marijuana is just as bad as any other hardcore street drug. Drug cartels just make it worst becuase of the money thats made which comes with violents and because of mass production of drug money, marijuana could still be catagoried as a harmful substance. by legalizing the plant, it could possibly lower crime rates but I gaurentee the Federal government could make alot more money by taxing marijuana sales. This is very similar to the alcohol prohibition from 1920 to 1940.
Reply
Juan Flores-Rodriguez
9/19/2014 08:42:38 am
Deante, you bring up some very interesting points that should be looked into. You’re probably right that the federal government does not like that they can’t control the revenue created from the production and sale of marijuana. If there was a change in policy that made regulating this market profitable to the states, there would be much to gain for the federal government. I’m also pretty certain that this has been pointed out to government officials by other very intelligent officials working in the white house. Yet it’s been shot down based on arguments that are downright false. One could speculate that there is strong opposition because it fulfills a different agenda that the federal government does not want lose control over; the institutionalization of specific groups of people. It’s an unfounded speculation, and could be wrong, but it’s an interesting that even though there’s of evidence proving that legalization of marijuana makes perfect sense to me, to others, and some states, it still makes no sense to others.
Reply
sharon clark
9/22/2014 09:17:23 am
In addition to this blog there is always room for growth for example just to name a few; Marijuana arrests are the engine driving the U.S. war on drugs. Nearly half of all drug arrests each year are for marijuana-related offenses, the overwhelming majority of which are for personal possession. These arrests fall disproportionately on blacks and Latinos, even though white people use marijuana at similar rates. Many of those who are arrested are saddled with a criminal conviction that can make it difficult or impossible to vote, obtain educational loans, get a job, secure housing, or even adopt a child. Additionally, the huge number of marijuana arrests each year usurps scarce law enforcement, criminal justice, and treatment resources at enormous cost to U.S. taxpayers.
Reply
Judy Sierra
9/18/2014 03:00:12 pm
The purpose of the state rights in American is to give the state rights and to limit the federal government powers. The laws adopted by the federal government when exercising its constitutional powers are generally paramount over any conflicting laws adopted by the state government. In the Dred Scott vs Sandford case, the ultimate decision of his freedom should have relied on his relocation within the states. This shows a power struggle between the federal and state government and their improper usages. Scott should have been allowed to sue because he was no longer a slave in the state where he lived, but that didn't happened. It also had a lot to do with Scott being African American and because he was not a citizen. The court of course was going to rule in favor of Sandford, and the court viewed slaves as property. Why does the federal government have the ability to overpower the state? Will there ever be fairness and equality? Who are they to said who can sue in a court? I learned that the states really don't have many rights when it comes to federal. The federal government takes over the largest cases and cases that they feel are necessary. Despite its original creation the federal government has and will abuse their power over the state. We are allowing others to take away our freedom of speech.
Reply
Kim Shaw
9/18/2014 03:03:55 pm
Response to Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)
Reply
annette thomas
9/19/2014 11:44:09 am
It is unfortunate that even with all our society’s “progress” and even though people are not classified as property the same class of people continue to manipulate the system. Every ethnicity is looked down upon as unworthy of the American Dream. As difficult as change is the “minorities” need to stand together and put our numbers to work for us. We should take inspiration from Dred Scott’s determination.
Reply
Dulce Fajardo
9/19/2014 02:14:38 pm
People will definitely not get what they deserve if they do not stand up strong for what they believe. It is true that racism is the leading factor for many governmental issues to go wrong. Even today it keeps happening that the minority are looked down on and the minority will keep on thinking they are less because they are made to believe that. I also agree with you saying that Scott was persistent, even if he did not win every claim he filed, and it is wrong that people like him did not get everything they deserved.
Reply
Alex Diaz
9/19/2014 04:48:23 pm
Its a shame how our government tries to silence or does not teach you things like this and if they do they try and phrase it in a way that doesn't sound as racist. And if you analyzing crimes that happen on a daily basis and the difference in people being incarcerated you can still see racism. Even with applications having its own section asking if you of latino or hispanic decent. The whole Tuscan Arizona banning of Mexican culture books. The government won't tell you that latinos helped slaves escape slavery because then it would cause the two communities to come together and actually create new movements.
Reply
Dulce Fajardo
9/18/2014 03:09:23 pm
Dred Scott v. Sandford:
Reply
Juan Flores-Rodriguez
9/18/2014 04:49:34 pm
I think you've identified exactly who befitted by the decision made in the Dredd Scott v Sanford court ruling. How we would react if this exact thing was going on in our society today? You've brought up an interesting thought. It's very hard to say because much like you've pointed out their's a precedent for it. I also agree that I'm not at all surprised that this happened in our history. Quite frankly, it's sad because I feel this is due to conditioning. How great would it be to have this feeling not be the case?
Reply
Annette Thomas
9/18/2014 03:27:50 pm
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)
Reply
Deante Climon
9/19/2014 09:02:30 am
the white property owners did benefit from the case. they brought up the amendment as African american are property and do not have any rights. the whole campaigns back in these times were mostly about African americans not being able to vote. first it was to abolish slavery, then once African american people were free, polititions debated about the rights of African americans, and both parties decided that African american people were not citizens of america.
Reply
Alex Diaz
9/19/2014 04:39:32 pm
Marijuana Reform/ A Statement by - Ethan Nadelmann:
Reply
9/22/2014 09:15:14 am
i chose to writ about the marijuana reform . who benefits from the marijuana reform?(Drug Policy ) . my feelings having drug policies is the safest way to have concerning usages. The changes in federal and internal marijuana laws does need to benefit the proper citizens that have a right to use it illegally. to be honest my opinion is all adult citizens of legal ages and young adults with medical illness/ disorder with gain some great benefits with revised marijuana laws. Prescription medicine have been known to have to many side affects in the body.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
POSCI 1/COA
Posci 1 students @ COA. ArchivesCategories |