|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 24, 2014 2:00:08 GMT
Not long ago, Nate Silver was disfellowshipped from The Church of Leftist Orthodoxy for having made the (heretical!) observation that Republicans have a 60 percent chance of retaking control of the Senate in November. The New York Times, however, now has a slightly different perspective: It gives the GOP just a 49 percent chance of winning back control of the Senate, with Democrats having a 51 percent chance of retaining control. It all comes down to eight competitive races, according to the NYT; and one of these races can probably be given to the Democrat (Colorado), on which the race has a 70 percent chance of going blue, according to the survey. On the other hand, two other races can probably be given to the Republican candidates (a 74 percent chance in Georgia and an 82 percent chance in Kentucky, according to the survey). This leaves the five tossup states of Arkansas, Michigan, North Carolina, Alaska, and Louisiana. And a pickup of just five seats--even if the GOP were to sweep these races--would not be quite enough. However, the GOP stands excellent chances of making gains in the open seats (being vacated by incumbent Democrats) in South Dakota and West Virginia; albeit less of a chance in Iowa. Anyway, here is a link to the article: Who Will Win The Senate? ? The Upshot Senate Forecasts ? NYTimes.com |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 28, 2014 12:47:39 GMT
Not long ago, Nate Silver was disfellowshipped from The Church of Leftist Orthodoxy for having made the (heretical!) observation that Republicans have a 60 percent chance of retaking control of the Senate in November. The New York Times, however, now has a slightly different perspective: It gives the GOP just a 49 percent chance of winning back control of the Senate, with Democrats having a 51 percent chance of retaining control.
The problem for Democrats, from what I've read, is that Democrats don't turn out for non-presidential elections very well when compared to Republicans. That has been the focus of the Democratic Party as they see voter turnout as being the determining factor for the elections this year. If the Democrats turn out and vote in the key states then the Democrats will retain control of the Senate. If they don't then they will lose it.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 28, 2014 19:20:39 GMT
Not long ago, Nate Silver was disfellowshipped from The Church of Leftist Orthodoxy for having made the (heretical!) observation that Republicans have a 60 percent chance of retaking control of the Senate in November. The New York Times, however, now has a slightly different perspective: It gives the GOP just a 49 percent chance of winning back control of the Senate, with Democrats having a 51 percent chance of retaining control.
The problem for Democrats, from what I've read, is that Democrats don't turn out for non-presidential elections very well when compared to Republicans. That has been the focus of the Democratic Party as they see voter turnout as being the determining factor for the elections this year. If the Democrats turn out and vote in the key states then the Democrats will retain control of the Senate. If they don't then they will lose it.
That is probably a sound conclusion. Yes, the Democratic base tends to offer poor turnout during the midterm elections. (For some rather inexplicable reason, many among the various Democratic client groups appear to think that control of either chanber of the Congress is just not so important as the presidency.) And, of course, there is the so-called "six-year itch": During the middle of the president's second term in office-- any president second term in office--the electorate usually becomes disenchanted with the party in power in the White House, and takes it out on members of that party during the midterms. And far more Democrats than Republicans are up for re-election in the Senate this year. (Plus, there are more open seats that are currently held by Democrats than there are open seats that are currently held by Republicans.) And, of course, there is always that albatross known as ObamaCare... |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 29, 2014 11:43:46 GMT
The problem for Democrats, from what I've read, is that Democrats don't turn out for non-presidential elections very well when compared to Republicans. That has been the focus of the Democratic Party as they see voter turnout as being the determining factor for the elections this year. If the Democrats turn out and vote in the key states then the Democrats will retain control of the Senate. If they don't then they will lose it.
That is probably a sound conclusion. Yes, the Democratic base tends to offer poor turnout during the midterm elections. (For some rather inexplicable reason, many among the various Democratic client groups appear to think that control of either chanber of the Congress is just not so important as the presidency.) And, of course, there is the so-called "six-year itch": During the middle of the president's second term in office-- any president second term in office--the electorate usually becomes disenchanted with the party in power in the White House, and takes it out on members of that party during the midterms. And far more Democrats than Republicans are up for re-election in the Senate this year. (Plus, there are more open seats that are currently held by Democrats than there are open seats that are currently held by Republicans.) And, of course, there is always that albatross known as ObamaCare...
A couple of months ago Obamacare was an albatross but that is no longer the case. Democrats can now tout it's success as it's been estimated that the number of uninsured has dropped from about 20% to 15% this year alone. When the implementation problems existed for the insurance exchanges Obamacare became a temporary problem for Democrats but once those were overcome then Obamacare moved forward rapidly to become a "success" story for Democrats.
In fact Democrats can point to the fact that the percentage of "uninsured" dropped to about 13% in Democratic states but only dropped to about 17% in Republican states (based upon what I've read) indicating that Republican opposition is the real problem with the insuring of Americans under Obamacare. They can make the argument that "Obamacare" isn't the problem, Republicans are the problem.
I'm just speculating on what the "political" arguments might be but I don't see Republicans winning an argument on "Obamacare" currently. I still don't like Obamacare but when I look at the Republican arguments and the Democratic arguments on it I see Democrats winning that argument. Now if Republicans were offering an alternative they might win the argument but Republicans have steadfastly refused to offer any alternative to Obamacare.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 29, 2014 16:11:49 GMT
That is probably a sound conclusion. Yes, the Democratic base tends to offer poor turnout during the midterm elections. (For some rather inexplicable reason, many among the various Democratic client groups appear to think that control of either chanber of the Congress is just not so important as the presidency.) And, of course, there is the so-called "six-year itch": During the middle of the president's second term in office-- any president second term in office--the electorate usually becomes disenchanted with the party in power in the White House, and takes it out on members of that party during the midterms. And far more Democrats than Republicans are up for re-election in the Senate this year. (Plus, there are more open seats that are currently held by Democrats than there are open seats that are currently held by Republicans.) And, of course, there is always that albatross known as ObamaCare...
A couple of months ago Obamacare was an albatross but that is no longer the case. Democrats can now tout it's success as it's been estimated that the number of uninsured has dropped from about 20% to 15% this year alone. When the implementation problems existed for the insurance exchanges Obamacare became a temporary problem for Democrats but once those were overcome then Obamacare moved forward rapidly to become a "success" story for Democrats.
In fact Democrats can point to the fact that the percentage of "uninsured" dropped to about 13% in Democratic states but only dropped to about 17% in Republican states (based upon what I've read) indicating that Republican opposition is the real problem with the insuring of Americans under Obamacare. They can make the argument that "Obamacare" isn't the problem, Republicans are the problem.
I'm just speculating on what the "political" arguments might be but I don't see Republicans winning an argument on "Obamacare" currently. I still don't like Obamacare but when I look at the Republican arguments and the Democratic arguments on it I see Democrats winning that argument. Now if Republicans were offering an alternative they might win the argument but Republicans have steadfastly refused to offer any alternative to Obamacare.
Actually, there are many Republican proposals to act as an alternatve to ObamaCare. The problem has been the inability to coalesce around just one of those proposals. Most of these "newly insured" individuals were probably among Demcratic client groups, anyway. The swing voters--the true independents, who can help determne the outcome of any national election--are most likely to have been harmed by ObamaCare: Either their premiums or their dedutibles (or both) have risen precipitously under ObamaCare; or their preferred doctors or hospitals (or both) are not a part of the very narrow networks; or any combinaion thereof. By the way, I am exceedingly pleased that the website's glitches are no loner the focus of any opposition to ObamaCare. That was always a red herring. The fundamental problem is not a poorly funtioning website, but ObamaCare itself.) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 30, 2014 13:37:07 GMT
Actually, there are many Republican proposals to act as an alternatve to ObamaCare. The problem has been the inability to coalesce around just one of those proposals. Most of these "newly insured" individuals were probably among Demcratic client groups, anyway. The swing voters--the true independents, who can help determne the outcome of any national election--are most likely to have been harmed by ObamaCare: Either their premiums or their dedutibles (or both) have risen precipitously under ObamaCare; or their preferred doctors or hospitals (or both) are not a part of the very narrow networks; or any combinaion thereof. By the way, I am exceedingly pleased that the website's glitches are no loner the focus of any opposition to ObamaCare. That was always a red herring. The fundamental problem is not a poorly funtioning website, but ObamaCare itself.)
I've read numerous current Republican proposals but they only address those that can afford insurance and not those that can't afford insurance. For example the Republican proposal for a "tax credit" for the cost of the insurance that only addresses a tax refund for those that can afford private insurance already. Historical Republican and "conservative" proposals did address the "uninsured" but they were basically included in Obamacare like the employer mandate and the government subsidies for private health insurance.
Poverty crosses all political ideologies and unless a "poor" Republican simply refused to take advantage of the health insurance subsideis by not enrolling, and millions probably did refuse, then "Obamacare" has nothing to do with political ideology. Of course the fact that many "Republicans" states refused to expand Medicaid did result it millions of Republicans in those states being unable to obtain Medicaid so perhaps you're correct.
As I stated from an "outsiders" perspective I believe the Republicans will lose a debate if they focus on "Obamacare" in the fall but that is just my opinion.
Back to the topic. While I don't know if it will make a difference as far as Republicans taking control of the Senate the "Voter ID Law" in Wisconsin has been struck down as unconstitutional.
abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/federal-judge-strikes-wisconsin-voter-id-law-23518938
That means possibly millions of "minority" US citizens that typically vote for Democrats won't be prohibited from voting just because they don't have valid government issued identification in November. What I didn't check was to see if Wisconsin has a Senate race that might be affected but it is certainly significant related to the 2016 presidential election.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 30, 2014 20:41:14 GMT
Actually, there are many Republican proposals to act as an alternatve to ObamaCare. The problem has been the inability to coalesce around just one of those proposals. Most of these "newly insured" individuals were probably among Demcratic client groups, anyway. The swing voters--the true independents, who can help determne the outcome of any national election--are most likely to have been harmed by ObamaCare: Either their premiums or their dedutibles (or both) have risen precipitously under ObamaCare; or their preferred doctors or hospitals (or both) are not a part of the very narrow networks; or any combinaion thereof. By the way, I am exceedingly pleased that the website's glitches are no loner the focus of any opposition to ObamaCare. That was always a red herring. The fundamental problem is not a poorly funtioning website, but ObamaCare itself.)
I've read numerous current Republican proposals but they only address those that can afford insurance and not those that can't afford insurance. For example the Republican proposal for a "tax credit" for the cost of the insurance that only addresses a tax refund for those that can afford private insurance already. Historical Republican and "conservative" proposals did address the "uninsured" but they were basically included in Obamacare like the employer mandate and the government subsidies for private health insurance.
Poverty crosses all political ideologies and unless a "poor" Republican simply refused to take advantage of the health insurance subsideis by not enrolling, and millions probably did refuse, then "Obamacare" has nothing to do with political ideology. Of course the fact that many "Republicans" states refused to expand Medicaid did result it millions of Republicans in those states being unable to obtain Medicaid so perhaps you're correct.
As I stated from an "outsiders" perspective I believe the Republicans will lose a debate if they focus on "Obamacare" in the fall but that is just my opinion.
Back to the topic. While I don't know if it will make a difference as far as Republicans taking control of the Senate the "Voter ID Law" in Wisconsin has been struck down as unconstitutional.
abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/federal-judge-strikes-wisconsin-voter-id-law-23518938
That means possibly millions of "minority" US citizens that typically vote for Democrats won't be prohibited from voting just because they don't have valid government issued identification in November. What I didn't check was to see if Wisconsin has a Senate race that might be affected but it is certainly significant related to the 2016 presidential election.
I should probably not be surprised that a federal judge has ruled in a left-of-center manner. (I have long asserted--at least, on other boards; I am not sure about this one) that the several states should simply refuse to participate, altogether, in the federal-court system; for instance, that, for Georgians, the highest authority in the entire nation, as regarding any and all matters, should be the Georgia Supreme Court, and the highest authority for Texans should be the Texas Supreme Court. No exceptions, as regarding what the matter at hand might concern.) Oh, you appear to believe that healthcare insurance is some form of fundamental right. But I do not. And neither, evidently, did the Founders, as they did not ensconce any such "right" in the US Constitution. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 1, 2014 12:02:03 GMT
I should probably not be surprised that a federal judge has ruled in a left-of-center manner. (I have long asserted--at least, on other boards; I am not sure about this one) that the several states should simply refuse to participate, altogether, in the federal-court system; for instance, that, for Georgians, the highest authority in the entire nation, as regarding any and all matters, should be the Georgia Supreme Court, and the highest authority for Texans should be the Texas Supreme Court. No exceptions, as regarding what the matter at hand might concern.) Oh, you appear to believe that healthcare insurance is some form of fundamental right. But I do not. And neither, evidently, did the Founders, as they did not ensconce any such "right" in the US Constitution.
State courts adjudicate the vast majority of disputes under the law but they only have jurisdiction under the State Constitution and cannot adjudicate issues of the US Constitution. They often do cite US Constitutional precedent but their decision is based upon the State laws and the State Constitution.
For example, the California State Supreme Court ruled that Prop 22 (a statutory law prohibiting same-sex marriage) was an unconstitutional violation of the Califoria State Constitutions "equal protection clause" but also cited the same clause in the US Constitution. When Prop 8 passed that revised the California State Consitution the California State Supreme Court was rendered powerless in adjudicating the case of whether it violated the US Constitution. The California State Supreme Court cannot declare the California State Constitution unconsitutionaly under the US Constitution as that can only be done in a federal court.
Always remember that the 10th Amendment prohibits the State or the People from exercising any "powers" prohibited by the US Constitution and those issues can only be adjudicated in a federal court.
NO! I don't believe that "health insurance" is a Right but do believe that "Health Care" is a Necessity. "Health Insurance" is just a means of mitigating the financial risks of the person related to the "Health Care" they require. There are other ways of ensuring that every person has the health care services they might require but all of them are "worse" than "health insurance" IMHO. For example I would oppose all health care services being provided for by "government owned" hospitals and clinics that abolishes private health care providers completely. Now that would be a monopolistic take-over of the health care system that "conservatives" seem to worry about but that isn't happening in the US.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 1, 2014 17:12:46 GMT
I should probably not be surprised that a federal judge has ruled in a left-of-center manner. (I have long asserted--at least, on other boards; I am not sure about this one) that the several states should simply refuse to participate, altogether, in the federal-court system; for instance, that, for Georgians, the highest authority in the entire nation, as regarding any and all matters, should be the Georgia Supreme Court, and the highest authority for Texans should be the Texas Supreme Court. No exceptions, as regarding what the matter at hand might concern.) Oh, you appear to believe that healthcare insurance is some form of fundamental right. But I do not. And neither, evidently, did the Founders, as they did not ensconce any such "right" in the US Constitution.
State courts adjudicate the vast majority of disputes under the law but they only have jurisdiction under the State Constitution and cannot adjudicate issues of the US Constitution. They often do cite US Constitutional precedent but their decision is based upon the State laws and the State Constitution.
For example, the California State Supreme Court ruled that Prop 22 (a statutory law prohibiting same-sex marriage) was an unconstitutional violation of the Califoria State Constitutions "equal protection clause" but also cited the same clause in the US Constitution. When Prop 8 passed that revised the California State Consitution the California State Supreme Court was rendered powerless in adjudicating the case of whether it violated the US Constitution. The California State Supreme Court cannot declare the California State Constitution unconsitutionaly under the US Constitution as that can only be done in a federal court.
Always remember that the 10th Amendment prohibits the State or the People from exercising any "powers" prohibited by the US Constitution and those issues can only be adjudicated in a federal court.
NO! I don't believe that "health insurance" is a Right but do believe that "Health Care" is a Necessity. "Health Insurance" is just a means of mitigating the financial risks of the person related to the "Health Care" they require. There are other ways of ensuring that every person has the health care services they might require but all of them are "worse" than "health insurance" IMHO. For example I would oppose all health care services being provided for by "government owned" hospitals and clinics that abolishes private health care providers completely. Now that would be a monopolistic take-over of the health care system that "conservatives" seem to worry about but that isn't happening in the US.
You my consider me to be firmly ensconsed in the states-rights camp; which is to say, I believe the several states should be authoritatvely superior to the federal goverment, in all matters. No exceptions. (And yes, I am familiar with Article Six, Clause 2 of the US Constitution--the so-called "Supremacy Clause.") I believe it would be fair to say that I am a bit to the right of John C. Calhoun on this matter--from about 200 years ago--and, like Calhoun, I am a strong suporter of the concept of states' nulliiation of federal laws. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 2, 2014 12:48:52 GMT
You my consider me to be firmly ensconsed in the states-rights camp; which is to say, I believe the several states should be authoritatvely superior to the federal goverment, in all matters. No exceptions. (And yes, I am familiar with Article Six, Clause 2 of the US Constitution--the so-called "Supremacy Clause.") I believe it would be fair to say that I am a bit to the right of John C. Calhoun on this matter--from about 200 years ago--and, like Calhoun, I am a strong suporter of the concept of states' nulliiation of federal laws.
The problem with the "State Nullification" argument is that every single state voluntarily agreed to the Supremacy Clause by becoming a State where they subjected themselves to the authority of federal law and the US Constitution. Even more important to that they agreed that the States and the People had no "power" (authority) to violate the US Constitution with the ratification of the 10th Amendment.
I don't believe in "nullification" of federal law but I do believe that the State can refuse to use it's law enforcement related to enforcement of federal law in some cases.
For example I live in WA and recreational marijuana use by adults has been legalized. The "State" is going so far as licensing growers, processors, and retail distributors under our State Law. The Federal government has a choice. It can enforce the Federal laws or it can not enforce the Federal laws related to marijuana. That is an "executive decision" that the President has to make but he knows he won't get any assistance from WA State law enforcemnt if he choosed to enforce the Federal laws. So far the White House has decided to not specifically enforce the marijuana laws but, based upon the medical marijuana laws of states, we know that isn't a very good protection because the Fed's have been busting medicinal marijuana growers and distributors even though the White House claimed they wouldn't.
What's more important though is that the States are expressing their displeasure and disapproval of the federal prohibitions on marijuana that were really based upon racism as were all of our drug prohibitions laws originally when the history is studied.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 2, 2014 13:07:07 GMT
Back to the Senate elections this fall. It will be interesting to watch and the cards are not out on the table yet. My primary concern is that all Americans that are entitled to vote and that want to vote are allowed to vote. That's why I'm concerned about the "Republican Voting Laws" that could disenfranchise millions of American citizens from voting. As opposed to increasing the participation in the voting process by American citizens they are designed to limit tht participation.
For example ending or restricting "early voting" is some States is going to result in many American citizens not voting that want to. I personally believe that "voting" in elections should be basically the same as voting as a stockholder in a corporation. Send me the ballot and then allow me to vote anytime between when I receive the ballot and the election cut-off date. When I grew up the ballot boxes were at our local fire stations and the person could drop in anytime and cast their vote after receiving their ballot. That provided about a 30-day window of voting.
Today I live in WA and all of our voting is by mail-in ballot. We fill out our selections on the ballot, place the ballot in an envelope, place that envelope inside of another one that we sign for voter verification purposes, and then mail it in. We don't have any problems with voter impersonation fraud and every registered voter has ample opportunity to vote. No computer malfunctions, no hanging chads, ample opportunity to vote for everyone, and no real problems that I'm aware of. While the votes are tallied by computer if there's a problem or if the vote is close then all of the votes are hand counted (which occurred in 2004 when the vote for governor was very close).
Where I find a far greater problem in our Federal Elections is with the gerrymandering of House Congressional Districts. Both parties engage in this practice because we have the "politicians" defining the Congressional Districts. We need to get the damn politicians out of the process of determining Congressional districts.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 2, 2014 19:21:06 GMT
You my consider me to be firmly ensconsed in the states-rights camp; which is to say, I believe the several states should be authoritatvely superior to the federal goverment, in all matters. No exceptions. (And yes, I am familiar with Article Six, Clause 2 of the US Constitution--the so-called "Supremacy Clause.") I believe it would be fair to say that I am a bit to the right of John C. Calhoun on this matter--from about 200 years ago--and, like Calhoun, I am a strong suporter of the concept of states' nulliiation of federal laws.
The problem with the "State Nullification" argument is that every single state voluntarily agreed to the Supremacy Clause by becoming a State where they subjected themselves to the authority of federal law and the US Constitution. Even more important to that they agreed that the States and the People had no "power" (authority) to violate the US Constitution with the ratification of the 10th Amendment.
I don't believe in "nullification" of federal law but I do believe that the State can refuse to use it's law enforcement related to enforcement of federal law in some cases.
For example I live in WA and recreational marijuana use by adults has been legalized. The "State" is going so far as licensing growers, processors, and retail distributors under our State Law. The Federal government has a choice. It can enforce the Federal laws or it can not enforce the Federal laws related to marijuana. That is an "executive decision" that the President has to make but he knows he won't get any assistance from WA State law enforcemnt if he choosed to enforce the Federal laws. So far the White House has decided to not specifically enforce the marijuana laws but, based upon the medical marijuana laws of states, we know that isn't a very good protection because the Fed's have been busting medicinal marijuana growers and distributors even though the White House claimed they wouldn't.
What's more important though is that the States are expressing their displeasure and disapproval of the federal prohibitions on marijuana that were really based upon racism as were all of our drug prohibitions laws originally when the history is studied.
I simply do not believe that every social issue can be boiled down to the matter of racism; but I shall not digress into a discussion of that. The state law in Washington state (and a similar law in Colorado) is, indeed, an attempt at nullification. And I support it for that purpose. (No, I really do not think that it is a good idea to legalize marijuana--on this point, I disagree with my libertarian friends--but I believe, even more strongly, that it should be a matter that is left to the individual states to decide-- not the federal government.) Another good example of nullification (this time, as concerning individual cities, rather than entire states) is the matter of so-called "sancturay cities." This flies in the face of federal law as regarding illegal immigration. And, although I remain strongly opposed to illegal immigration--it is a point that we can discuss (and have been discussing) in another thread--I have no problem whatsoever with individual cities acting in defiance of federal law. This is really the core principle here. As for the argument from the Tenth Amendment: Its words are fairly succinct, viz.: "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." I believe that in Marbury v. Madison, the US Supreme Court arrogated unto itself a "right" that is nowhere found in the US Constitution; and I therefore do not respect its decisions. By the way, those of us who are to the right of center find considerable comfort in the Tenth Amendment; we wish that it were so well respected by the left: tenthamendmentcenter.com/ |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 3, 2014 11:17:29 GMT
I simply do not believe that every social issue can be boiled down to the matter of racism; but I shall not digress into a discussion of that. The state law in Washington state (and a similar law in Colorado) is, indeed, an attempt at nullification. And I support it for that purpose. (No, I really do not think that it is a good idea to legalize marijuana--on this point, I disagree with my libertarian friends--but I believe, even more strongly, that it should be a matter that is left to the individual states to decide-- not the federal government.) Another good example of nullification (this time, as concerning individual cities, rather than entire states) is the matter of so-called "sancturay cities." This flies in the face of federal law as regarding illegal immigration. And, although I remain strongly opposed to illegal immigration--it is a point that we can discuss (and have been discussing) in another thread--I have no problem whatsoever with individual cities acting in defiance of federal law. This is really the core principle here. As for the argument from the Tenth Amendment: Its words are fairly succinct, viz.: "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." I believe that in Marbury v. Madison, the US Supreme Court arrogated unto itself a "right" that is nowhere found in the US Constitution; and I therefore do not respect its decisions. By the way, those of us who are to the right of center find considerable comfort in the Tenth Amendment; we wish that it were so well respected by the left: tenthamendmentcenter.com/
There was no attempt to nullify Federal Law that prohibit the growing, distribution, or possession of marijuana when we "legalized" it at the state level in Washington. We were fully prepared to accept that the federal government could intervene and stop the state from allowing recreational use and there were numerous ways the federal government could have done this. Instead, at least in rhetoric, the federal government based upon an executive decision has stated it will not intervene. The President said that about medicinal marijauan but the DEA has been routinely busting California growers and dispensaries anyway so we'll see what happens related to recreational use.
Ironically I've read numerous "conservative" commentaries that condemn the White House for deferring to State authority on issues also addressed by federal law including the marijuana issue.
Whether we agree with a Supreme Court decision or not is irrelevant because we must support the Rule of Law. I've read Marbury v. Madison that was a unanious decision by the US Supreme Court and can find no flaws in the legal argument of the Court. On the other hand I have read Supreme Court decisions such as Reynolds v United States from 1878 (Freedom of Religion) where the Court established precedent in it's legal argument and then ignored the very precedent it established. I still have to support the decision but can address the self-conflicting nature of the decision. I also have problems with "majority" decisions where the minority opinion expresses serious issues of Constitutionality but still I must accept the Rule of Law related to the decision. I can only hope that the issues of Constitutionality presented by the minority opinion are addressed in the future by due process of the law.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 3, 2014 19:48:24 GMT
I simply do not believe that every social issue can be boiled down to the matter of racism; but I shall not digress into a discussion of that. The state law in Washington state (and a similar law in Colorado) is, indeed, an attempt at nullification. And I support it for that purpose. (No, I really do not think that it is a good idea to legalize marijuana--on this point, I disagree with my libertarian friends--but I believe, even more strongly, that it should be a matter that is left to the individual states to decide-- not the federal government.) Another good example of nullification (this time, as concerning individual cities, rather than entire states) is the matter of so-called "sancturay cities." This flies in the face of federal law as regarding illegal immigration. And, although I remain strongly opposed to illegal immigration--it is a point that we can discuss (and have been discussing) in another thread--I have no problem whatsoever with individual cities acting in defiance of federal law. This is really the core principle here. As for the argument from the Tenth Amendment: Its words are fairly succinct, viz.: "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." I believe that in Marbury v. Madison, the US Supreme Court arrogated unto itself a "right" that is nowhere found in the US Constitution; and I therefore do not respect its decisions. By the way, those of us who are to the right of center find considerable comfort in the Tenth Amendment; we wish that it were so well respected by the left: tenthamendmentcenter.com/
There was no attempt to nullify Federal Law that prohibit the growing, distribution, or possession of marijuana when we "legalized" it at the state level in Washington. We were fully prepared to accept that the federal government could intervene and stop the state from allowing recreational use and there were numerous ways the federal government could have done this. Instead, at least in rhetoric, the federal government based upon an executive decision has stated it will not intervene. The President said that about medicinal marijauan but the DEA has been routinely busting California growers and dispensaries anyway so we'll see what happens related to recreational use.
Ironically I've read numerous "conservative" commentaries that condemn the White House for deferring to State authority on issues also addressed by federal law including the marijuana issue.
Whether we agree with a Supreme Court decision or not is irrelevant because we must support the Rule of Law. I've read Marbury v. Madison that was a unanious decision by the US Supreme Court and can find no flaws in the legal argument of the Court. On the other hand I have read Supreme Court decisions such as Reynolds v United States from 1878 (Freedom of Religion) where the Court established precedent in it's legal argument and then ignored the very precedent it established. I still have to support the decision but can address the self-conflicting nature of the decision. I also have problems with "majority" decisions where the minority opinion expresses serious issues of Constitutionality but still I must accept the Rule of Law related to the decision. I can only hope that the issues of Constitutionality presented by the minority opinion are addressed in the future by due process of the law.
The people of Washington state--as well as the people of Colorado--knew precisely what they were doing: They knew that the federal government was not likely to allocate the resources necessary to prohibit the sale of marijuana; and that it would merely be stirring up a hornet's nest if it were to act in clear defiance of public sentiment, so gratuitously. Many states--as far apart as South Carolina and Missouri; or--much farther apart still--Montana and Alabama, have passed laws nullifying federal laws as regarding firearms. Basically, these laws state that any guns manufactured within the state (and which remain within the state)--irrespective of where their component parts may have originated--are not to be considered subject to federal laws regarding firearms. Some of these laws further state, not only that federal officials, attempting to enforce federal law that is contrary to state law, will not be assisted by state officials, but that they are subject to arrest and imprisonment. (Frankly, I do not believe that this is a matter of mere grandstanding; but a quite serious thrust in the direction of nullification. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 4, 2014 10:55:30 GMT
The people of Washington state--as well as the people of Colorado--knew precisely what they were doing: They knew that the federal government was not likely to allocate the resources necessary to prohibit the sale of marijuana; and that it would merely be stirring up a hornet's nest if it were to act in clear defiance of public sentiment, so gratuitously. Many states--as far apart as South Carolina and Missouri; or--much farther apart still--Montana and Alabama, have passed laws nullifying federal laws as regarding firearms. Basically, these laws state that any guns manufactured within the state (and which remain within the state)--irrespective of where their component parts may have originated--are not to be considered subject to federal laws regarding firearms. Some of these laws further state, not only that federal officials, attempting to enforce federal law that is contrary to state law, will not be assisted by state officials, but that they are subject to arrest and imprisonment. (Frankly, I do not believe that this is a matter of mere grandstanding; but a quite serious thrust in the direction of nullification.
We "hoped" that the federal government would not prevent recreational marijuana use but we were in no way confident that the federal government would allow it. I still don't believe the federal government will not intervene because we had the same empty rhetoric from the DOJ related to medicinal marijuana use and the federal drug busts for marijuana growing and distribution actually increased in California as opposed to going down.
The Feds might ignore marijuana but it's not going to ignore violation of federal firearms laws and any "state" law enforcement officer that attempts to arrest a federal law enforcement agent is going to end up behind bars. The state law enforcement officer doesn't have to assist the feds but to stand in their way is obstruction of justice and they will go to prison if they attempt it. I don't think any state law enforcement officer is stupid enough to even try to stop an ATF agent from enforcing a warrant issued by a federal court.
|
|
