Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I contend that the federal govt. requires the cooperation of the states and local law in order to enforce their will. They simply don't have the manpower to enforce federal law across the country without the help of the states. If the states say "Fine, you can have your law, but we're not helping to enforce it" they are basically powerless IMO.
For example, as more and more states legalize marijuana for recreational and medical purposes, despite federal law still stating it is illegal for all purposes, the time is coming to where their cries of "Respect my federal authority" are falling on deaf ears and not being seriously considered, and rightfully so in my opinion.
This is an example of "checks and balances" as far as I'm concerned, it keeps the federal branch of govt. from becoming too powerful and subjects them to the will of the states, and ultimately, the people. It's one of the many ways I feel authority should be kept in check by the people, they should know that they really have no power except to bend to the will of the majority of the people "below" them.
For those of you that will say "When has the federal govt. changed it's laws about anything in response to the states actions" I'll point to the issue of gay marriage.
In my humble criminologist's opinion, I think you are talking about apples, oranges and grapes.
Marriage: There is no federal marriage license, only state licenses. Same as driving licenses. States can allow anybody they want to marry; the federal government can voice disapproval in public, but they are otherwise impotent on the issue - er, so to speak. The feds cannot marry or unmarry anyone any more than they can issue - or revoke - a driver's license.
Does federal law supercede state law? Yes. The supremacy clause of the US Constitution (Article 6, Clause 2) says federal law trumps state law. Not even a maybe. However, if a state law is appealed enough times, it will eventually wind up as a Writ of Cert at the US Supreme Court, which may then opt to rule on the federal constitutionality of state law. Hence, the decision on marriage.
The legalization of marijuana: Some states have gone ahead and legalized marijuana in opposition to federal law. The US government's position on this is that marijuana remains a Class I CS (read: illegal) substance. The feds have not decided to intervene with these states for a number of reasons. The main problem is 21 USC 330 et seq - for any article to be declared a 'drug' at the federal level, it has to show it is safe and effective for its intended use when used as directed. If it isn't, it is a violation of federal law at 21 USC 331 et seq for it to be distributed in interstate commerce. If the feds issued an exception for marijuana, it would immediately face trillions in lawsuits from drug companies that spent billions of dollars to comply with the law - only to watch marijuana get an end run around the very same law with which they complied.
Not like they haven't tried to get marijuana approved as a drug. I know of hundreds and hundreds of INDs (layman's terms: FDA issued permission to researchers allowing them to transport an unapproved article in interstate commerce for the purposes of studying it in humans) dating back to the early 1990s. Not a single one ever showed marijuana was safe and effective when used as directed for its intended (research) purpose. Not one. Last time I checked, which was about 2016, there were 419 outstanding INDs for marijuana. Still, not a single one was showing sufficient efficacy to even continue the study, let alone seek approval under an NDA (license to market a drug). In three areas there was anecdotal evidence that it might have efficacy, but the researchers couldn't refine it well enough to even continue their study.
One of the reasons the federal government hasn't intervened in states' legalization of marijuana is that some states simply legalized it as an intoxicant - not a drug. The federal government has no written standing, policy or precedent on this issue. So no one in Washington really knows what to do about this concept. I do know from inside the federal DOJ that they are struggling with what to do with the states that have decided to legalize marijuana. Even today.
The feds have the staffing necessary to enforce the basic laws they are charged with enforcing, but do seek local assistance as force multipliers for some specific areas. This is normally done with the 'task force' concept, as has been done in the drug, firearm, terrorism, fugitive, healthcare fraud and other enforcement environments.
Finally, when you talk about the government's 'will,' do please recall that the government is of, by and for the people. In other words, the government is you. You people elected the president, all 100 senators and each of the 435 representatives. They are supposed to steer government departments, bureaus and agencies to do the will of you, the people. If you think they aren't, please take it up with either yourselves or your elected representatives.
After all, cops - even federal cops - simply do what we're told.
I contend that the federal govt. requires the cooperation of the states and local law in order to enforce their will. They simply don't have the manpower to enforce federal law across the country without the help of the states. If the states say "Fine, you can have your law, but we're not helping to enforce it" they are basically powerless IMO.
For example, as more and more states legalize marijuana for recreational and medical purposes, despite federal law still stating it is illegal for all purposes, the time is coming to where their cries of "Respect my federal authority" are falling on deaf ears and not being seriously considered, and rightfully so in my opinion.
This is an example of "checks and balances" as far as I'm concerned, it keeps the federal branch of govt. from becoming too powerful and subjects them to the will of the states, and ultimately, the people. It's one of the many ways I feel authority should be kept in check by the people, they should know that they really have no power except to bend to the will of the majority of the people "below" them.
For those of you that will say "When has the federal govt. changed it's laws about anything in response to the states actions" I'll point to the issue of gay marriage.
What are your arguments for or against this idea?
If i recall when CA had it on the ballot (prop 8), the public actually voted AGAINST it, but it was Govt who then came in and changed that, so....?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
