State Pot Laws Usurping the Fed Means Abortion Is Next...

Discussion in 'Legal Philosophy' started by RoshawnMarkwees, Jan 11, 2018.

  1. Skylar
    Offline

    Skylar Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2014
    Messages:
    33,073
    Thanks Received:
    4,470
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +13,231
    Oh, slippery slope arguments do occur. But they're ridiculously rare. And in this case, there's zero indication that they have the slightest relevance to abortion or marriage.

    And the 1975 rulings in Alaska have *nothing* to do with federally protected rights. While both abortion and marriage do. State rulings do *not* created federally protected rights. Nor is there any 'rights' argument in play in the current State and Federal conflicts about Pot laws.

    You're offering us 'historic examples' with vastly different circumstances.

    Alaska had a STATE recognized right. This is a right only recognized in Alaska only. Abortion and marriage are FEDERALLY recognized rights. These are rights recognized in EVERY State. Yet you're equating the findings of a State court with the findings of the Supreme Court. That's a false equivalency in terms of rights. Rights for individuals recognized in State courts do NOT trump the US constitution or US federal law. Rights recognized by the Supreme Court are constitutionally protected and do trump US federal laws.

    This enormous difference alone obliterates your 'slippery slope' argument by demonstrates wildly different circumstances with utterly different legal implications. But it gets worse for your argument.

    Additionally, the current State v. Federal conflict involves powers exclusively. There are no rights being cited by....anyone. Not the States. Not the Federal government. No one. Only powers, with the States arguing that they have the power to legislate pot laws in their jurisdiction. And the Federal government contemplating applying the Supremecy Clause to their own

    Federally recognized rights trump both State AND federal laws. Putting them above both. Thus, the conflict between the States and Federal government would not plausibly effect rights as federally recognize rights are above and have authority over both parties. And its worse for your argument still.

    Rights and Powers have completely different constitutional bases. Powers are based in the constitutionally delegated authority of the Constitution and those powers retained by the States in the 10th amendment. While rights are retained by the people, enumerated in the Bill of Rights and unenumerated reserve rights articulated in the 9th amendment. One has little to nothing to do with the other.

    Making it even more unlikely that a conflict of State and Federal *powers* would result in an erosion of individual *rights* as recognized by the federal government.

    Your argument fails 3 separate times. Any one of which would render your 'slippery slope' ludicrously unlikely.
     
  2. EverCurious
    Offline

    EverCurious Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2014
    Messages:
    11,062
    Thanks Received:
    1,816
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Alaska
    Ratings:
    +7,231
    That is the argument about slippery slope dude, how can you not get it?

    SSM & abortion didn't /used/ to be federally 'protected' they only are now because of SCOTUS rulings. You honestly think that the SCOTUS cannot change their ruling on SSM and abortion? They did on slavery, they did it on booze, they did on pot, they did on global warming, on conservation, etc. You're pretty damn trusting of the Feds which I think is a bit foolish and "communist/socialist" thinking - ie big government knows best. How about looking at this subject from a different perspective? WHY did the Feds have to rule on SSM and abortion? Because at it's core, the individuals in various states refused to "accept" SSM and abortions, so the Feds decided to step in and impose their opinions/beliefs/and wills upon those states, many times against multiple votes /against/ it by the individuals in those states. Thus, you, if you agree with SSM and abortion rights, clearly do not believe in "majority rule" either...

    The problem is that "morals" of the "group" change, the "rights" of "we the people" as "controlled" by the Feds should /not/. Fed should /not/ be making them up based on their "opinions at the time," "who's in power at the time," etc. I think /most/ stuff should be decided individually by states, by the people who vote in those states; even if that leads to some "reasonable" inconsistencies between states. (SSM is a bit of a particular "circumstance" in that we had cross-state insurance and taxes and shit - and that is actually one of the only reasons I am "for" SSM - but there were other, probably better for co-existence and national peace, ways to resolve it than to have the Fed dictate their will and opinion upon "we the people of individual states.")

    I, being pretty Libertarian and Individualistic, plus having been raised in Alaska, where the Feds have forced their decisions upon us, against "we the people of Alaska's" repeated, and vocal, opinions/preferences/wishes on many, many issues; from pot to drilling, from mining to state management of fish & game, from SSM to abortion, etc., have /zero/ faith that the Fed has any give a shit in "we" individual's up here's best interest, needs, nor "rights" (be they merely "legal" or "God given") The DC asshats are only interested in votes, special interest money, and their personal pet projects. By my opinion, by the opinion of most folks on the right, and in fact by the opinions of many "classical liberals" as well the Fed should be pretty limited in their power. It is only the... "modern left," which has quite frankly been taken over by folks with socialistic/communistic ideals, that think it is okay for the Feds to have so much power over the states. I bet the only reason you're okay with the Fed's dictating on "lefty issues" like global warming, SSM, abortion, pot, environmentalism, etc. is because you happen to agree with all or most of it.

    The slippery slope argument is /not/ that "rights" are taken away by just "anyone" in my argument - it is that Fed's are taking power from the states, and that "we the peoples" acceptance of it, will eventually lead to a DC dictatorship - and quite frankly, if you had any ability to see outside your bubble on this issue, you'd easily recognize that not only is it plausible in the particularity of Fed vs State, but it has, in fact, already happened, repeatedly, all over the nation. I example Alaskan issues simply because that is what I am most familiar with, but guaranteed that if you look, you will find examples of Feds taking powers that they really should not from every state in the nation. From the beginning really, slavery was merely the first in the "slippery slope" - and while I agree with the decision, the fact remains that the Feds took power and dictated "rights" to the states, something they continue to do to this day about /everything/ and /anything/ that catches their fancy SSM and global warming related shit being just the latest examples in a long and continuous string that proves the "slippery slope" argument I make. Just a few examples of "recent" state vs fed issues that I suspect you'll find Fed "dictate" displeasing (presuming you're a "typical" modern liberal); illegal immigration and sanctuary cities, refugees, school choice, fracking, offshore oil, SALT, etc. MANY of these are Fed oversteps IMO (Note - I kind of have to except immigration, border security, and refugee because that is the Fed's department... However, IF we didn't have "national" welfare/medicaid/ACA and national laws/regulations like EMTALA, then I'd actually say that the individual states could choose to take in illegals & refugees if they wanted, and manage them accordingly - letting them work, get drivers licenses, pay state taxes, vote in local elections, etc. Of course states who were "less accepting" of illegals could also institute their own policies of managing illegals, to include deportation, voter ID, fining businesses that hire them, and even seizure of assets if they're caught within state lines. Totally up to the state and what their people are willing to put up with.)


    If you happened to be Christian, for example, you'd probably think that the legalization SSM and "murder" (which is exactly what they consider abortion as) were an overstep of power... If you happened to be living in the bush of Alaska, you'd probably think EPA regulations (to example telling folks in Fairbanks they can't burn wood to heat their homes because the particulate count doesn't reach the ridiculous /new/ standards set by Obama's administration during a few weeks of the year, when there is no real alternative for these folks because the EPA and environmentalist lobby groups also oppose running a nat. gas line to Fairbanks, and while other environmentalist groups also oppose the use of propane, heating fuel, etc being used as well) was an overstep of power... If you had a history of state managed fish & wildlife that balanced the needs of native subsistence hunting/fishing with commercial and sport, that balanced oil/mining industry with preservation of our tourism industry, then you'd believe it was an overstep of power for the Feds to attempt to take that management away... If you happened to live in Alaska, where growing pot was a major thing before the Feds forced criminalization, you'd see the damage it did to the small farmers in the Valley, or the discomfort and /added costs/ it put upon our veterans, and feel it was an overstep of Fed power...

    And all of those things I mention, why? Why does the Fed need to dictate this shit, when most Alaskan's have voted their opinions on it all? Because the Feds are only interested in gaining power, forcing their will upon the people regardless of their opinions/desires/and votes, because "they know better" - which in itself is the whole reason one argues the slippery slope argument in such a case, because the desire for power by DC bureaucrats will /never/ be sated, they will /always/ want to control more - just as they will always want more money. When you combine the natural tendencies of bureaucrats, to get votes regardless of the actual "need" or "desire" of "the people," with the natural tendency of socialistic/communistic ideals that "big government" is "better" breeds - you have a "perfect storm" for the loss of state, and therefore individual, rights - no matter how you want to "make it okay."

    When you are someone like me, who believes strongly in both individual rights and in state rights over Fed "mob rule," then it is exceptionally dismissive to have people like you telling us stuff along the lines of "we're just conspiracy theory nuts" - because ultimately that dismissal just proves the entire foundation of the "belief" that drives our legitimate concerns; that "other people" outside of our state/our beliefs/our opinions/our individual "rights", don't give two shits what we think or want or need; they "know better" than we do, because "reasons."

    As an aside, that is one of the big reasons that Trump won, folks who don't give a shit about "us" are constantly and continuously trying to tell "us" what to think, believe, and feel about everything, if we disagree we're "fly over states," we're "uneducated," we're "deplorable," we're "racist/sexist"... Quite frankly "we" are sick and damned tired of being "dismissed" by folks "we" see as socialistic/communistic assholes who have no respect for what /we/ believe is "right" and "moral" and "best for the nation." And even whilst "group think" types dismiss us, they admit, by proxy, that they too do not actually want Fed power, they don't want the Fed telling them what to believe, think, and believe when "we" are in power, any more than we "individualistic" types do - but they're too damned "educated" to admit it, so they continue pushing for Fed power over states, until, of course, they lose control of the Feds, then /they/ themselves turn into the "conspiracy nuts" who are opposed to the "dangers" and "concerns" of Feds vs state rights. It'd be a hell of a lot better for /everyone/ "individualist or groupist," "left or right," if we left most everything to the states, but for some reason both sides have to keep fighting so their politicians "true faces" don't show - they're both the same kind of jackass just with different flavors of dictatorship... ~sigh~
     
  3. Skylar
    Offline

    Skylar Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2014
    Messages:
    33,073
    Thanks Received:
    4,470
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +13,231
    Again, conflicts about States powers don't translate into erosions of federally recognized rights as powers and rights have completely different bases, with the former *subordinate* to the latter. Powers are subordinate to rights. Why then would an erosion of powers 'slippery slope' into an erosion of rights?

    You're confusing and muddling all sorts of pretty basic legal concepts. For example, State and Federal. You're equating the ruling of State court with the ruling of the United States Supreme Court. Which is confused nonsense. As State court rulings effect *only* the State they occur in. While USSC rulings effect EVERY State. State rullings are subordinate to USSC rulings. USSC rulings are NOT subordinate to State rulings.

    Yet you use them interchangeably in your 'slippery slope' argument, despite state rulings being subordinate to rights. Just as you do with rights and powers, despite powers being subordinate to rights.

    The federal government exercising powers on the State doesn't translate into federally recognized rights somehow eroding....nor have anything to do with it. You're horribly confused. And are ignoring enormous differences in the constitutional bases for powers, rights, state authority and federal authority.

    And lastly, there are no issues of rights in this debate. There is no constitutionally protected 'right to smoke pot'. The conflict on pot is a powers dispute. Yet, inexplicably and in defiance of all reason, you equate them again.

    The courts aren't going to ignore what you do. Nor, historically, have. Which is why the 'slippery slope' erosion of federally recognized rights over a state v federal powers conflict on pot is ludicrously unlikely.

    Technically they can. But they are ludicrously unlikely to do so. Nor is there any particular reason why they would based on a conflict between States and the Federal government over pot laws.

    The two simply have nothing to do with each other.

    When rights are rescinded, they are almost always done so temporarily, on very narrow bases, and under extraordinary circumstances. Like.....WWII and Japanese internment.

    We have *nothing* remotely approaching that on abortion or marriage. Neither of which have a thing to do with pot laws. Your argument is a muddled, illogical mess.
     

Share This Page