And yet the individual states DO have rights. Where I see this playing out will be on subjects such as gay marriage and marijuana -- where liberals are forced to take two sides of the states rights coin.
Nullification?
- Thread starter trapdoor
- Start date
And yet the individual states DO have rights. Where I see this playing out will be on subjects such as gay marriage and marijuana -- where liberals are forced to take two sides of the states rights coin.
NightSwimmer
Senator
Of course states have rights. They simply don't have the right to glibly pronounce federal law null and void. I can't help you with your strange fascination with liberals, but you're already getting to see both issues play out right before your very eyes.
When state's rights was used as an excuse to maintain institutional segregation back in the mid 20th Century, the federal government could have continued to look the other way, as they had for so long, or they could have moved to rescind all federal law guaranteeing equal rights. They did not.
The same is true now of the unconstitutional state marijuana legalization. The only difference is that there really isn't a valid logical nor ethical reason for the federal government to prohibit marijuana use and possession to begin with. Therefore, I expect our federal government to eventually do what the majority of Americans desire and end federal marijuana prohibition.
That probably would have happened already, but for the fact that both of our major political parties understand that if they risk making the first move toward legalization, the other party will accuse them of being "soft on crime" and run a smear campaign against them.
If you're hoping for the SCOTUS to outlaw gay marriage, then I suspect that you'll be in for a disappointment.
Precisely -- which would seem to invalidate the laws of both Colorado and Washington state when it comes to marijuana.
Actually, the federal government's hands were tied when it came to enforcing civil rights because the Constitution provided no enforcement authority for the government to act. That authority came when SCOTUS essentially redefined the commerce clause so that ALL commerce was considered interstate, and every action was considered commerce. The Civil Rights Act enforcement authority comes from the ability to regulate interstate trade named in the commerce clause.
Defiance of the supremacy clause would be a sufficient logical or ethical reason for federal action for any other legislation that effectively nullified federal law in this way. (For what it's worth, I also expect federal legalization sometime in the next decade, and favor it, but in the mean time we have this states rights conundrum).
You've got the wrong guy. If gays are foolish enough to desire marriage, it suits me just fine if they get married (I honestly don't think states should be in the "licensing marriage" business). But if state A wants to legalize marijuana (in defiance of the supremacy clause) and state B wants to outlaw gay marriage (in defiance of the same clause), which state is acting constitutionally?
NightSwimmer
Senator
Obviously, both states would be in violation. The response to that violation would define yet another evolution of our law. Thankfully, law is not static. I wouldn't want to live under the same set of laws as did the first citizens of the United States.
As to licensing marriage, would you prefer that to be done at the federal level, or would you prefer that we simply had no law whatsoever defining a contract of marriage?
I think marriage is a socio-religious construct. In other words, I think neither the state nor the federal government should license it, and individuals should write their own marriage contracts to arrange for distribution of assets, etc. If I'm contracted to a man or woman as spouse and want that spouse to receive family benefits for, say, insurance, the employer should have to respect that if the employer provides such benefits. We have enough requirement for state permission in our lives -- we shouldn't have to get its permission to marry.
Hmmmm
Mayor
Why, if the state has no legal interest in marriage, should an employer have to respect a private contract between two people? What if the contract is between more than two adults when defining the scope of the family?
Maybe the approach I described won't work in that regard. It was just an idea. Why should the state be able to tell me if I'm married or not?
Hmmmm
Mayor
I don't know as I haven't given it much thought. First thing off of the top of my head is that I like the idea that a legal status gives me some control over the affairs of my family such as during some medical emergencies etc. I have always opposed common-law marriage thinking that if someone wants the legal protections of marriage, they should get married I think if you left it up to individuals to seek all of the legal protections themselves, many would just say the hell with it and have none. Again, I haven't thought about it too much and I am not unhappy with the status-quo.
But one can have legal status in a host of areas that don't require state sanction. I think the "people saying to hell with it an having none" is a pretty common phenomena right now, today, when state-sanctioned marriage still exists.
NightSwimmer
Senator
Why should the state be able to tell you whether you are a citizen or not? Why should that state be able to tell you anything? Why can't we live in an anarchist utopia? I don't like laws -- they limit my freedom to do as I please.
</BogusLibertarianMode>
Hmmmm
Mayor
Maybe true but, again, I am not unhappy with the status-quo. All approaches will have their set of issues.
Well, the state has certain essential authorities if it is to be a state -- but marriage? Really? As a state authority, it's a holdover from when the church and state were the same thing.
NightSwimmer
Senator
Unworthy of response.
If you say so. We're way off topic any way.
marvin martian
Emperor
Yet you responded to it anyway...
