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
Swarthmore mom – basically half of the US did not vote for Obama. Obama knew how to play the system and get the votes where it mattered the most. (However some of the districts where they received more votes than registered voters, and the 100% vote count for Obama is rather fishy, to say the least). So America didn’t “reject the Republican vision” if basically half of the US voted for the Republican vision. Additionally, if you check the latest news, there are several states that are wanting to part ways with Obama’s government, altogether. So it isn’t quite as cut and dry as you say..
“Additionally, if you check the latest news, there are several states that are wanting to part ways with Obama’s government, altogether.”
Hubert,
Bye, Bye and don’t slam the door on the way out.
A considerable number of people view the propaganda on marijuana and homosexual marriage “extremist rhetoric.”
Asked if the voters rejected the Republican vision, Ryan said of the president: “Well, he got turnout. The president should get credit for achieving record-breaking turnout numbers from urban areas for the most part, and that did win the election for him.”
Actually, the president should get credit for becoming just the second out of the last 10 presidents to win a majority of the popular vote both times he was on the ballot. (Reagan was the other.) Beyond that, the numbers that matter are these ones: 332 and 206. And when you’re the guy who got 206 electoral votes, your vision was rejected. It’s as simple as that.
Paul Ryan might not like the fact that voters in “urban areas” have the same rights as every other American (and judging from the way his party tried to suppress the vote in cities, it’s pretty clear he’s not alone), but that won’t change the fact that when people voted, they chose President Obama and Vice President Biden. And in doing that a majority of Americans not only rejected the Republican vision as articulated by Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, they endorsed the Democratic agenda. And no matter how much Paul Ryan whines about it, nothing is going to change that simple fact. Daily Kos
I rather Jill Stein or Gary Johnson than Romney or Obama.
I’m beginning to think that Petraeus got caught in a honeypot for the purpose of an October surprise.
I would rather have had Jill Stein or Gary Johnson than Romney, nick.
nick, Not Really……..Most dems would rather have had Nader than Bush.
Mike This is not a surprise since Boehner et al also do not care what the people have said with their votes,
“An interesting story of a local city council prepared to override a recent ballot initiative approved by 2/3rds of the voters.”
SWM, I’m well aware of the pundits, Dem, Repub, disdain and fear of a 3rd party. The establishment makes it exponentially more difficult than it should be. Dems would much rather lose to a Repub and vice versa rather than have a 3rd party emerge.
SWM, Those book sales for Friedman must be astronomical if he could fund a 3rd party. I doubt the NYT pays much. On Perot, I voted for the whacko knowing he wouldn’t win. Would you want Perot w/ his hands on the nuclear football??
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/americans-elect-and-the-death-of-the-third-party-movement/2012/05/17/gIQAIzNKXU_blog.html
SWM, I don’t remember saying unequivocally Patreus was falling on his sword, I thought I said that was a possiblity. My main point was and is even more now, the TIMING. Eric Holder knew about the Patreus scandal in late Sept. It stretches credulity that the President didn’t know until after the election if his AG knew in Sept. Here’s an admitted shoot from the hip scenario. The timing would be right. It was painfully obvious the prez was distracted in the 10/2 debate. One of the hypothesis was he was distracted by Benghazi. Well, he may have been distractred by Benghazi but more so Patreus. Can’t you see the Chicago guys telling Obama this 1/2 punch of Benghazi, Patreus, and now John Allen would be a severe body blow to his foreign policy strength. I think Obama is a good man. I could envsion his good side being distracted by his dark side and his handlers telling him to bury this. Let me repeat, this is a shoot from the hip. But, it is not partisan. I voted for Obama the first time and gave him $, the first time I ever gave $ to a pol. I like him.
Some of Perot’s ideas were spot on and he was liberal on social issues, nick.
nick, Thomas Friedman provided the money for a centrist party this year but they could not find a a candidate, If Romney had not been nominated, they were going to go with a Snow – Pryor ticket.
OT maybe,
You all know that names ending in -us are Swedish in origin, and used to denote a priestyl or bishop’s family name.
I would gather that the Petra-part is from St. Peter, of the rock….
For Swedish bishops I refer you to the one in Bergman’s film, “Fannny and Alexander”. Nasty guy.
The famed Carl von Linnaeus was a theological graduate but became famous for the binomial naming system practiced today. His fame gave him the von-honorarium.
SWM, All of the current 3rd parties are fringe. You need to look no further than Ross Perot. That midget wacko got ~18% of the vote! That’s what I mean by a demagogue rising, which i fear. The 3rd party I envision is mainstream, moderate, non career pols. I can dream can’t I?
nick, I think a third or fourth party is a good idea, but don’t see it now. Jill Stein, Gary Johnson and other together polled under 2 %. You also said that Petreaus was taking a fall for Obama. Yep, he started an affair years a go to take the fall.
Shano,
Thanks for a great post. Rationality over vested interests and goofball unreason. You did it.
How many of the 30 cannibioids do I inhale from a joint? And is the medically dispensed a selected group? I am wanting to use myself as a study object. Have they detailed which organs are receptve to which? All half in jest.
If I burn down a cannabis house, does the fire department have to wear masks and the police evacuate all but medical users?
FACT: In Thailand (1965) is was a common as grass, and just as cheap. They would give it away at any roadside stand where you stopped to buy fruit.
SWM, I’m sure you know the US has horrible voter turnout. In the past 60 years voter turnout has never reached 65%! It peaked @ ~63% in 1960 Kennedy/Nixon. It has been below 50% a couple times, I think the Clinton/Dole election was ~48%. Your view is myopic. When Dems get their base out that means less than 25% of eligible voters. For Repubs a little less. As you know we independents outnumbered both parties this election. We have discussed 3rd party and I know your disdain for it. However, a viable 3rd party would almost certainly increase voter participation . And as Martha Stewart says, “That’s a good thing.” Don’t you think?
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/11/13/15140799-norquists-influence-wanes?lite More good news…. Grover Norquist’s influence over congress has waned.
nick, Not as many people disdain the democrats as you say. Young women are quite enamored with the party right now. The base is intact, and the election proved it.