Below is my column today in USA Today on some of the state referendum votes last week. While the presidential election was understandably the focus of media commentary, state referendum votes held some surprises. At a time when a majority of citizens view our political system as dysfunctional and unresponsive, these referendums show that citizens can still take direct action in seeking change. Here is the column:
Finally, change we can believe in. Last week, voters came together in a grassroots movement to demand changes in their government and in their lives. No, it was not the Tea Party movement, which imploded in a spasm of gaffes and extremist rhetoric. It was certainly not the “hope” of the Obama campaign, which for most liberals was an excersise of “hope over experience.” Rather, citizens in various states have crossed party and ideological lines to challenge the federal government on issues such as marijuana and gay marriage. In a triumph of federalist principles, states are going their own way on important social issues, but this is not the type of “change” either party wants to believe in.
Ironically, for almost four years, states’ rights have been a focus of national politics as Republicans denounced ObamaCare for its expansion of federal power. Now, many of those same Republicans are opposing the right of states to reach their own conclusions on issues of same-sex marriage, assisted suicide and legalization of marijuana. Likewise, President Obama has spent the past year trying to repair damage with liberals and civil libertarians over his continuation of Bush policies in areas ranging from national security to medical marijuana. Yet, after going silent before the election to win back liberals, the Justice Department indicated the day after the election that it would continue its policies on marijuana.
It is hardly news that principle is a stranger to many politicians. However, citizens across the country still believe in federalism, the idea that their states should be able to choose their own positions on social and criminal issues. They have the U.S. Constitution on their side. The 10th Amendment states that “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.” James Madison believed that the states were safely behind a federalist firewall to protect against the “ambitious encroachments of the federal government.” Indeed, Madison assured his contemporaries that it would take a “degree of madness” for the federal government to usurp the power of the states. If that is true, we are truly living in mad times.
State politicians have largely yielded to the madness, but citizens appear to have lingering notions of self-determination. In a couple of areas, citizens have fought back and have asserted direct control over their laws and their lives.
Medical Marijuana
Last week, Washington and Colorado became the first states to legalize recreational use of marijuana. In addition, Massachusetts became the 18th state to legalize medical marijuana.
Polls show 74% support medical marijuana. And 56% support regulating pot like alcohol. This makes marijuana one of the sharpest divides between citizens and their government. Despite the fact that only 15% of voters support continued prosecution of medical marijuana cases, Obama has continued the Bush scorched earth prosecutions..
The push by voters for decriminalization is likely only to increase. Washington will allow the sale of pot, which could bring in taxes worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Unless blocked by the Obama administration, that type of revenue (as well as the savings in not prosecuting pot cases) is likely to get the attention of other states in a bad economy.
Despite three out of four citizens supporting the use of medical marijuana, Congress and the White House remain in absolute lock step in expending resources and personnel in the prosecution of these cases. States are expected to adhere to the federal policy regardless of the wishes of their citizens.
Same-Sex Marriage
Last week, Maine, Maryland and Washington voted to legalize same-sex marriage, the first such recognition made by voters as opposed to legislatures or courts. They joined New York, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and Washington, D.C., in the recognition of gay marriage. While the Framers would likely have been surprised by the notion of same-sex marriage, they would have celebrated the role of these referendums. Yet, many conservatives (including self-described advocates of federalism) seek a constitutional amendment to take away the ability of states to recognize such unions.
The effort is even more problematic as an amendment to deny rights as opposed to expand them. Most amendments in the Bill of Rights expanded rights — part of a noble and consistent trend of greater liberties in this country. Faced with citizens who want to expand the rights of their fellow citizens, these fair-weather federalists are moving to stop more states from joining.
Citizens aren’t likely done demanding self-government. Efforts to enact local policy on assisted suicide and deal with global warming issues will continue despite federal policies and laws. This taste for self-determination could become insatiable. Once you realize you have a voice, you tend to want to use it.
Jonathan Turley is a professor of public interest law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors.
November 13, 2012
Eric, Romney was in favor of banning gay marriage.
Eric, You sound like another sore loser.
I’m kind if middling on Mr. Cohen as a performer, but he’s a very competent song writer and a world class poet. And he’s got a great hat. Good choice, OS.
I have complete faith that Obama will continue to both oppose legalized marijuana and to fail to support legal gay marriage – full and equal treatment including parental rights and adoption. As is the case with all politicians lately, he is a narcissistic whore who will do the bidding of his corporate backers while speaking lies and platitudes to those of us who vote every two years, but do not attend $50 thousand per plate fundraisers.
My favorite quote about the election came from the Washington Post which pointed out that we spent about $6 billion in total to end up pretty much where we started.
Gov. Hickenlooper and Holder are engaging in conference calls about the legislation so we will see what happens. Holder is probably leaving in any case. Hickenlooper is one of the up and coming democratic governors. So glad Colorado went blue. Those of us in red states won’t be benefitting from progressive legislation. We just get voter suppression. I see Minnesota turned down the anti gay marriage amendment and voter id.
lotta,
Is that the “free market” at work? 😉
Seriously, it was a most informative link and one point made by the authors sticks with me: “Right now, people smuggle marijuana across the U.S.-Mexico border for profits of about $20 an ounce, so a tax substantially higher than that could be tricky to enforce.” (tax evasion)
The analogy to tomatoes is also an eye opener.
All in all, an article containing lots of food for thought.
Lord, I’m not trying to pepper this post with puns but they just keep on coming.
Excellent post and ditto to LK and Gene….
I think the ponderous nature of our government was seen as a feature not a bug by the folks who designed it. So many of the tools appear to be built to moderate change. Over the course of 200-some years that has not been an altogether bad thing.
I doubt the founders ever envisioned a world where states would be so easily crossed or intermixed. Its not surprising that as travel and commerce become easier and broader that there would be a pull between the federal and the local. Its also not surprising that people would prefer to see the final power for any given issue rest in the entity that most closely supports their own position.
All good points, LK.
Gene, Blouise, yes there are very strong vested interests that do not want MJ legalized and they are going to do whatever they can to keep it illegal. What I liked about the article I linked to though was that it revealed the price of a commercial operation for herb in comparisons that anyone could understand. It also floated the thought that a business could virtually give it away free or sell it at nominal cost. Think about that. It’s a hypnotic, generally a mood elevator and an apatite stimulant. Think about the money to be made by business interests that would like their customers to be mellow, focused and hungry.
In a totally legalized state a restaurant could serve each patron a joint with the cracker/bread basket before the meal. Theaters could hand them out with each ticket bought (movies would be way more fun stoned and theaters make money off their concessions, not the films. Same for taverns/clubs that have live bands or feature canned music, people would buy weed along with their booze and people that like live music but not booze might show up in greater number. Amusement park rides are more fun for sure. The entire entertainment industry would profit.
There could well be serious countervailing economic gain for industries other than alcohol and pharma. A state government that legalized, fully legalized weed could benefit in a number of ways indirectly (as could municipal governments) and pick up some tax money too.
Ah, yes. Federalism, how do we play that.
The major issues have already been commented: the influence of those who gain from federal action vs the desires of the people on a state level.
There is the aspect that the people DO actually desire change and feel that the feds are opposed to that change. What to do? Rebel, or exercise states rights—that much maligned term used to shield Jim Crow for so many decades.
The point is that the entrenched Federal system is totally
corrupt, and the people know it—all 3 branches. That is a given.*** Federalism would seem to be the way out to
those at the state level; and thus state initiatives arise.
Now comes the rub, will the Feds allow it. The JD says no to marijuana. How will (and can) that be resolved?
I am sure that there are those here who can cite the precedents from earlier cases and the use of federal armed power. We can all remember the use of federal marxhals in Alabama and National Guardsmen in Kent State, although at Governor’s orders in the latter case. (Really? No fingers?)
Finding federal solutions to the assassination lists and NDAA confinement through revision of federal action does not seem possible to me. However the legalization of marijuana in opposition to alcohol, tobacco, pharma might be possible in terms of popular support.
And although I don’t use, I agree that the guy who comes home and lights up a bong is not the one who beats his wife. He might not take out the garbage, but he won’t sit with his nose in a sport the whole evening either.
So, maybe, as I believe, there will be positive social and quality of life gains in its use more widely.
Lastly, changing governmemt is done most easily at local level, and most easily corrupted there. So there is the question of big frogs in small ponds (whereof there might be ouitside ones like big gov and big interests) makes for a skewed contest. Bring in the scabs and the private militia, to borrow a phrase from another area and era.
We can be sure the interests will use more modern methods first, then it is an open question. DEA SWAT teams, Agent Orange spraying, mass raids on suspected homes, ????.
We have shown in double measure this last election that we CAN. Not only in these state approved measures.
We have seen diverse minorities (and even majorities within Catholic women) join in opposing hypocrisy and religion gripping after our goveerment and they have defeated them and re-elcted Obama.
The nice thing about the WA Initiative 502 (marijuana) is under state law, the Attorney General is bound to defend the law in court if the US gov’t decides to interfere.
Let’s see if the logjam is broken by WA and CO’s initiatives. Maybe the feds will give up on keeping Mary Jane hidden in the basement.
Especially Big Pharma.
It’s kind of hard to buy off an entire population … lot easier to get the government to lower the big boot.
LK,
Legal marijuana isn’t just a threat to the alcohol and tobacco industries. Don’t forget Big Pharma, Private Prisons and LE and their suppliers have vested interests in keeping it illegal.
This is a test of the emergency Federalism anti-tyranny system.
Either the Federal government will bend and realize they are not a national government or they will put down the boot and assume more authority than the Constitution allows.
Given that the previous administration ordered torture and went to war for private gains and the current administration has said they have the authority to execute citizens without due process in violation of the Constitution (and the Separation of Powers Doctrine) already?
Wadda you think is gonna happen?
These two items have been simmering for some time as legitimate state’s rights issues.
How they play out is important for a lot of reasons and they bear close watch.
Federalism as played out through state voter initiatives is a mixed bag and I agree with the position that initiatives that restrict rights are more problematic than initiatives that expand rights. Good on Washington, Colorado, Massachusetts, Maine, Maryland and Washington.
An article from Salon quoted/linked in boingboing has an interesting take on the economics of MJ in a state where pot is completely legal.
Excerpt:
“Get High for Free
If pot were truly legal, joints would cost only a few cents.”
“…. There’s been relatively little analysis of what a legal marijuana industry might look like. One key but little-appreciated fact is that, according to persuasive research by Jonathan Caulkins, Angela Hawken, Beau Kilmer, and Mark Kleiman in their new book Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone Needs To Know, is that legal pot would be amazingly cheap. In fact, midgrade stuff would be so cheap that it might make sense for businesses to give it away like ketchup packets or bar nuts. ….
This would make pot far and away the cheapest intoxicant on the market, absolutely blowing beer and liquor out of the water. Joints would be about as cheap as things that are often treated as free. Splenda packets, for example, cost 2 or 3 cents each when purchased in bulk.”
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/07/how_much_would_legal_marijuana_cost_a_new_book_says_it_would_be_nearly_free_.html
bettykath,
Here’s the link if you want to check the numbers.
http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/pdf_boe/en-US/ElectionResults2012/11062012UnofficialResultsbyPrecinct.HTM
I don’t know if you are familiar with Cuyahoga County but I am. I’d be hugely surprised if Romney got a single vote in many of those precincts.
I went to the state of Wyoming Secy of State web site and looked at the breakdown precinct by precinct in each county. Guess what … there were several precincts with “0” votes for Obama, even more with just 1,2,or 3 votes for Obama.
I guess voter fraud from the Republican side must be in plain sight too.
Or perhaps the population in certain precincts in Cuyahoga County really likes Obama and the population in certain precincts in Wyoming really likes Romney.
I followed the link to the Cuyahogo County numbers. I didn’t count the 0’s or 1’s or 2’s but there were enough of them that it seems to support the article. These are touch screen machines so there is no easy way to see if this is what the voters intended short of getting the list of voters from the BoE and interviewing them. There were also problems with votes intended for Romney lighting up the Obama vote instead.
http://www.pakalertpress.com/2012/11/12/election-fraud-obama-won-more-than-99-percent-of-the-vote-in-more-than-100-ohio-precincts/
Excerpt:
Barack Obama received more than 99% of the vote in more than 100 precincts in Cuyahoga County, Ohio on election day. In fact, there were a substantial number of precincts where Mitt Romney got exactly zero votes. So how in the world did this happen? Third world dictators don’t even get 99% of the vote. Overall, Mitt Romney received 30.12% of the vote in Cuyahoga County. There were even a bunch of precincts in Cuyahoga County that Romney actually won. But everyone certainly expected that Cuyahoga County would be Obama territory. And in most of the precincts that is exactly what we saw- large numbers of votes for both candidates but a definite edge for Obama. However, there are more than 100 precincts in Cuyahoga County where the voting results can only be described as truly bizarre. Yes, we always knew that urban areas would lean very heavily toward Obama, but are we actually expected to believe that Obama got over 99% of the votes in those areas? In more than 50 different precincts, Romney received 2 votes or less. Considering how important the swing state of Ohio was to the national election, one would think that such improbable results would get the attention of somebody out there. Could we be looking at evidence of election fraud hidden in plain sight?
Guess it’s up to the states.
http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-to-mtv-i-won-t-be-pushing-gay-marriage-second-term
Excerpt:
One day after endorsing gay marriage proposals in Washington and Maine, President Obama told MTV viewers Friday that he would not be pushing gay marriage in his second term, ABC News reported.
According to Obama, “it would be up to future generations of Americans to implement meaningful reform,” ABC added.
“First of all, I’ve been very clear about my belief that same-sex couples have to be treated before the eyes of the law the same way as heterosexual couples,” he told MTV’s Sway Calloway. “I think that’s the right thing to do. It’s based on my personal experience, seeing loving couples who are committed to each other, raising kids and are just outstanding people,” he added. “And I was supportive of civil unions, but they taught me, if you’re using different words, if you’re somehow singling them out, they don’t feel true equality.”