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

[EverCurious]

I'm pro-choice, but I think that states should be making the decision on abortion. If folks honestly believe that abortion is killing babies then ******* shit let them not see it outside their windows. Drive to ******* California for your abortion, you know it'll always be legal there.

 

[jon_berzerk]

If states get away with disregarding federal law and continue to legalize pot at the state level, state legislatures can then arrest abortion providers if they enact state laws prohibiting abortion. The Fed be damned.
Pothead lefties better watch out for what they wish for.

News flash- the legalization, or decriminalization of pot crosses party lines.
Poll: Growing number of Americans support marijuana legalization, including Republicans
A record high number of respondents to a Gallup poll released Wednesday said they support the legalization of marijuana, including more than half of Republicans polled.

then the remedy is to change the federal law

Which is exactly what the anti-abortion people want.

with what is currently happening it is much easier for a state to ignore

the abortion laws and write their own

 

[BuckToothMoron]

If states get away with disregarding federal law and continue to legalize pot at the state level, state legislatures can then arrest abortion providers if they enact state laws prohibiting abortion. The Fed be damned.
Pothead lefties better watch out for what they wish for.

News flash- the legalization, or decriminalization of pot crosses party lines.
Poll: Growing number of Americans support marijuana legalization, including Republicans
A record high number of respondents to a Gallup poll released Wednesday said they support the legalization of marijuana, including more than half of Republicans polled.

Did I say anything about this being about democrat conservatives only?

Yes, you said pothead lefties. What’s the matter, smoke so much weed you can’t remember your own post?

 

[emilynghiem]

If states get away with disregarding federal law and continue to legalize pot at the state level, state legislatures can then arrest abortion providers if they enact state laws prohibiting abortion. The Fed be damned.
Pothead lefties better watch out for what they wish for.

RoshawnMarkwees
I thought it was the ACA mandate, that made "right to health care the law of the land"
which spelled the end of "prochoice" -- by proving liberals DO BELIEVE the govt could have a greater "compelling interest" that overrides individual right to free choice in health care decisions.

 

[ScienceRocks]

You're either pro states rights or you're not.

The war on drugs is one of the most anti-constutional things are federal government has ever done.

You aint a liberterian if you support it.

Just **** off and die with you dumb anti-government arguements otherwise if you do support this shit.

 

[Skylar]

They may change. But the court rarely withdrawals rights. It usually expands them. And In Predicting legal outcomees, the only reliable predictive indicators are the the law, case law and court rulings that do exist.

Not may exist.

That might be, but the end result is that your implication that abortion and ssm are "rights" in the same context that gun ownership is a right is a bit flawed. They are presently "legal" rights, but they can be made "not rights" at any point in time - it all depends on who's sitting in the top bench seats frankly.

It's actually "safer" or "better" to have /states/ decide "legal" rights than Feds, because if you haven't noticed DC is a "shithole" and don't give a flying rats ass about anyone, they only care about getting your vote - by any lie, deception, or bullshit necessary. A state politician can't get away with that as easily because residents naturally pay attention to their local politics more than national.

It's exactly why Dem's put abortion and SSM in Fed hands, to supersede the /actual/ votes of individuals in states who were against it - they used big city liberal's numbers against what people /actually/ wanted to be acceptable in their communities. While I'm pro-choice, for legalization, AND an SSM supporter, I fully recognize that putting it in the hands of the Fed is wrong on principle. It actually goes against my beliefs on the "right course" for SSM, "grassroots" movements on the local level to foster acceptance of SSM is a far, far more effective tool than ramming it down the unwilling throats of millions was, or ever will be. Now you have backlash from those folks who feel that /their/ opinions and beliefs mean nothing to the politicians and DC in general. They vote accordingly and will likely now be pushing to have SSM /criminalized/. Same thing goes with pot legalization frankly, before it was individual states deciding on their own if it should be legal or not, then the Feds came in and /forced/ it against the will of (what I do believe is the majority) of the nation's actual wishes for decriminalization.

Feds suck at damn near everything they touch, that's all there is to it, giving them power to pick and chose our "legal rights" like abortion, SSM, and pot is ******* stupid.

It’s possible......but improbable. The court overwhelmingly moves iteratively and in line with existing precedent. It also overwhelmingly favors the expanding of rights over their restriction. I can’t think of the last time a constitutionally recognized right was rescinded.

So while its possible, it’s highly improbable. The slippery slope is likewise, highly improbable.

I'd actually argue that the Japanese internment during WWII would qualify as your "improbable" rescinding of Constitutional rights. That was a Fed move.

Then you have to go back almost 70 years for an example and even that was temporary. And that was in the middle of a massive war. Demonstrating my point of how rare it is to occur....and how extreme the conditions must be for it to happen.

We have nothing remotely as extreme regarding abortion or marriage here. Pot laws certainly don't qualify.

"Here" as in your state? Which is? Again, maybe you don't notice it because the Feds tend to rule "your way" - they constrict our rights [Alaska,] both individual and "state," all the damn time... I think Alaska has been in battle with the Feds pretty much since the beginning, since we became a state, and really even before then - we were in contention with the feds over shit like forcing all of our imports and exports to go through [a US port] San Fran and Seattle - costing us around twice as much for everything.

Maybe it's just how we, you and I, were raised; were you raised believing the Feds had your best interest in mind, or that they knew best? I was raised the opposite, both by my mother, and my friends up here, that the Feds were constantly causing us problems. ~shrug~

I believe that the retraction of rights is comparatively rare in comparison to the recognition of rights. And the historical record plays that out.

Making the 'slippery slope' argument related to pot laws ridiculously unlikely. As the conflict regarding pot laws is one of powers between the State and Federal government. Not rights of the individual.

 

[emilynghiem]

You're either pro states rights or you're not.

The war on drugs is one of the most anti-constutional things are federal government has ever done.

You aint a liberterian if you support it.

Just **** off and die with you dumb anti-government arguements otherwise if you do support this shit.

Dear ScienceRocks
Do you make the distinction between
Decriminalization of drugs and
Legalization of them?

Many people are against abortion but don't believe it should be banned or criminalized because this creates worse problems.
Many people opposed drug use or abuse, but also don't believe in CRIMINALIZING it though they don't believe in LEGALIZING IT either,
because BOTH of these create worse problems and costs to taxpayers.

Similarly with prostitution.

Are you okay with people who believe in DEcriminalization, but don't believe in legalization
but believe there still needs to be some kind of deterrent or preventative measures in place to prevent rampant abuses?

 

[EverCurious]

That might be, but the end result is that your implication that abortion and ssm are "rights" in the same context that gun ownership is a right is a bit flawed. They are presently "legal" rights, but they can be made "not rights" at any point in time - it all depends on who's sitting in the top bench seats frankly.

It's actually "safer" or "better" to have /states/ decide "legal" rights than Feds, because if you haven't noticed DC is a "shithole" and don't give a flying rats ass about anyone, they only care about getting your vote - by any lie, deception, or bullshit necessary. A state politician can't get away with that as easily because residents naturally pay attention to their local politics more than national.

It's exactly why Dem's put abortion and SSM in Fed hands, to supersede the /actual/ votes of individuals in states who were against it - they used big city liberal's numbers against what people /actually/ wanted to be acceptable in their communities. While I'm pro-choice, for legalization, AND an SSM supporter, I fully recognize that putting it in the hands of the Fed is wrong on principle. It actually goes against my beliefs on the "right course" for SSM, "grassroots" movements on the local level to foster acceptance of SSM is a far, far more effective tool than ramming it down the unwilling throats of millions was, or ever will be. Now you have backlash from those folks who feel that /their/ opinions and beliefs mean nothing to the politicians and DC in general. They vote accordingly and will likely now be pushing to have SSM /criminalized/. Same thing goes with pot legalization frankly, before it was individual states deciding on their own if it should be legal or not, then the Feds came in and /forced/ it against the will of (what I do believe is the majority) of the nation's actual wishes for decriminalization.

Feds suck at damn near everything they touch, that's all there is to it, giving them power to pick and chose our "legal rights" like abortion, SSM, and pot is ******* stupid.

It’s possible......but improbable. The court overwhelmingly moves iteratively and in line with existing precedent. It also overwhelmingly favors the expanding of rights over their restriction. I can’t think of the last time a constitutionally recognized right was rescinded.

So while its possible, it’s highly improbable. The slippery slope is likewise, highly improbable.

I'd actually argue that the Japanese internment during WWII would qualify as your "improbable" rescinding of Constitutional rights. That was a Fed move.

Then you have to go back almost 70 years for an example and even that was temporary. And that was in the middle of a massive war. Demonstrating my point of how rare it is to occur....and how extreme the conditions must be for it to happen.

We have nothing remotely as extreme regarding abortion or marriage here. Pot laws certainly don't qualify.

"Here" as in your state? Which is? Again, maybe you don't notice it because the Feds tend to rule "your way" - they constrict our rights [Alaska,] both individual and "state," all the damn time... I think Alaska has been in battle with the Feds pretty much since the beginning, since we became a state, and really even before then - we were in contention with the feds over shit like forcing all of our imports and exports to go through [a US port] San Fran and Seattle - costing us around twice as much for everything.

Maybe it's just how we, you and I, were raised; were you raised believing the Feds had your best interest in mind, or that they knew best? I was raised the opposite, both by my mother, and my friends up here, that the Feds were constantly causing us problems. ~shrug~

I believe that the retraction of rights is comparatively rare in comparison to the recognition of rights. And the historical record plays that out.

Making the 'slippery slope' argument related to pot laws ridiculously unlikely. As the conflict regarding pot laws is one of powers between the State and Federal government. Not rights of the individual.

I heavily disagree with your wording in that last sentence. The "state" and the "federal government" don't have "rights" only individuals do...

The "slippery slope" argument can be made with any law that affects individual rights, that's the whole complaint. Neither state /nor/ Fed should have the ability to infringe upon individual rights. State infringement is slightly better because at least there the actual people in that state get to vote on shit that infringes, but Feds are assholes who could give a rats ass what individuals want. That's exactly why the left wants control of DC, because then they can /force/ their personal viewpoints upon the rest of the nation, rather than letting folks govern themselves (via their state.)

The modern left are just as "totalitarian" as the church was back in the 50s and 60s, and worse honestly because they're forcing their moral opinions upon the entire nation through Fed usurpation of individual freedoms and decisions at the state level. EPA and BLM laws intended to force compliance with the Federal opinion on global warming are an example of usurped individual rights; and now, with Trump in office, we see all of that falling by the wayside, and we see states [and their people] making those decisions for their coastline on their own. Federal business regulations is another area where we see Trump cleaning things up and returning the decision back to the individual states/muni's.

And again, with the pot thing, it was criminalized by the Fed, not the states, the Fed's usurped /individual/ rights in order to control immigration without the asshole politicians risking reelection by admitting that they were being racist and discriminatory against Mexican immigrants. Pot is a perfect example of taking away individual rights, a perfect example of why the government doesn't always know best, and a perfect example of how 'political corruption' has "slipped" into our system. The feds have taken too much power, not from states, but from we the people, us individuals who should have the /right/ to decide what /we/ believe in, rather than have fed opinions and morals shoved down our throats.

EDIT I should clarify that last sentence, it's not that the right didn't usurp individual rights via fed control, but they did it less and were a hell of a lot less blatant about it because most of their base voters are big on individualism, vs the left is blatant and doesn't try to hide it because they're very "group/collective" orientated.

 

[Skylar]

It’s possible......but improbable. The court overwhelmingly moves iteratively and in line with existing precedent. It also overwhelmingly favors the expanding of rights over their restriction. I can’t think of the last time a constitutionally recognized right was rescinded.

So while its possible, it’s highly improbable. The slippery slope is likewise, highly improbable.

I'd actually argue that the Japanese internment during WWII would qualify as your "improbable" rescinding of Constitutional rights. That was a Fed move.

Then you have to go back almost 70 years for an example and even that was temporary. And that was in the middle of a massive war. Demonstrating my point of how rare it is to occur....and how extreme the conditions must be for it to happen.

We have nothing remotely as extreme regarding abortion or marriage here. Pot laws certainly don't qualify.

"Here" as in your state? Which is? Again, maybe you don't notice it because the Feds tend to rule "your way" - they constrict our rights [Alaska,] both individual and "state," all the damn time... I think Alaska has been in battle with the Feds pretty much since the beginning, since we became a state, and really even before then - we were in contention with the feds over shit like forcing all of our imports and exports to go through [a US port] San Fran and Seattle - costing us around twice as much for everything.

Maybe it's just how we, you and I, were raised; were you raised believing the Feds had your best interest in mind, or that they knew best? I was raised the opposite, both by my mother, and my friends up here, that the Feds were constantly causing us problems. ~shrug~

I believe that the retraction of rights is comparatively rare in comparison to the recognition of rights. And the historical record plays that out.

Making the 'slippery slope' argument related to pot laws ridiculously unlikely. As the conflict regarding pot laws is one of powers between the State and Federal government. Not rights of the individual.

I heavily disagree with your wording in that last sentence. The "state" and the "federal government" don't have "rights" only individuals do...

There is simply no mention of 'rights' as it pertains to the States or Federal government in the constitution. In every instance, the respective entities have powers. Only individual people are ever referred to as having rights.

Check the 9th amendment, then check the 10th.

The constitution is crystal clear. And the courts have followed with literally centuries of precedent on the matter. The legal basis of a states power and the legal basis of an individuals rights are completely different, constitutionally.

And any legal dispute on the matter is going to be viewed the lens of that precedent and the constitution.

The "slippery slope" argument can be made with any law that affects individual rights, that's the whole complaint. Neither state /nor/ Fed should have the ability to infringe upon individual rights. State infringement is slightly better because at least there the actual people in that state get to vote on shit that infringes, but Feds are assholes who could give a rats ass what individuals want. That's exactly why the left wants control of DC, because then they can /force/ their personal viewpoints upon the rest of the nation, rather than letting folks govern themselves (via their state.)

There is no basis of 'rights' in smoking pot in the current legal dispute. There is no legally recognized right to smoke pot in say, California. The basis of the dispute between State laws and Federal laws is one of powers exclusively. The supremacy of federal law over state law.

The reason the slippery slope argument doesn't work in this instance is that assumes a dispute on state and federal powers has immediate and direct implication for individual rights. This is nonsense, as rights trump both state and federal law, sitting above both.

 

[EverCurious]

I'd actually argue that the Japanese internment during WWII would qualify as your "improbable" rescinding of Constitutional rights. That was a Fed move.

Then you have to go back almost 70 years for an example and even that was temporary. And that was in the middle of a massive war. Demonstrating my point of how rare it is to occur....and how extreme the conditions must be for it to happen.

We have nothing remotely as extreme regarding abortion or marriage here. Pot laws certainly don't qualify.

"Here" as in your state? Which is? Again, maybe you don't notice it because the Feds tend to rule "your way" - they constrict our rights [Alaska,] both individual and "state," all the damn time... I think Alaska has been in battle with the Feds pretty much since the beginning, since we became a state, and really even before then - we were in contention with the feds over shit like forcing all of our imports and exports to go through [a US port] San Fran and Seattle - costing us around twice as much for everything.

Maybe it's just how we, you and I, were raised; were you raised believing the Feds had your best interest in mind, or that they knew best? I was raised the opposite, both by my mother, and my friends up here, that the Feds were constantly causing us problems. ~shrug~

I believe that the retraction of rights is comparatively rare in comparison to the recognition of rights. And the historical record plays that out.

Making the 'slippery slope' argument related to pot laws ridiculously unlikely. As the conflict regarding pot laws is one of powers between the State and Federal government. Not rights of the individual.

I heavily disagree with your wording in that last sentence. The "state" and the "federal government" don't have "rights" only individuals do...

There is simply no mention of 'rights' as it pertains to the States or Federal government in the constitution. In every instance, the respective entities have powers. Only individual people are ever referred to as having rights.

Check the 9th amendment, then check the 10th.

The constitution is crystal clear. And the courts have followed with literally centuries of precedent on the matter. The legal basis of a states power and the legal basis of an individuals rights are completely different, constitutionally.

And any legal dispute on the matter is going to be viewed the lens of that precedent and the constitution.

The "slippery slope" argument can be made with any law that affects individual rights, that's the whole complaint. Neither state /nor/ Fed should have the ability to infringe upon individual rights. State infringement is slightly better because at least there the actual people in that state get to vote on shit that infringes, but Feds are assholes who could give a rats ass what individuals want. That's exactly why the left wants control of DC, because then they can /force/ their personal viewpoints upon the rest of the nation, rather than letting folks govern themselves (via their state.)

There is no basis of 'rights' in smoking pot in the current legal dispute. There is no legally recognized right to smoke pot in say, California. The basis of the dispute between State laws and Federal laws is one of powers exclusively. The supremacy of federal law over state law.

The reason the slippery slope argument doesn't work in this instance is that assumes a dispute on state and federal powers has immediate and direct implication for individual rights. This is nonsense, as rights trump both state and federal law, sitting above both.

I'm not at all surprised that you don't want to talk about the slippery slope argument with historical reference, that's the proof that it happens.

As for the pot thing, Alaska would disagree. In hmmm 1975 I believe it was Alaska actually put pot in it's state constitution has a legally protected right, it fell under privacy, an individual right. The Feds ignored, and in fact required, Alaska to change it's state constitution on the matter.

Lets step back, what is the justification for Fed discrimination of Mexican's via the drug classification of pot? Today they argue it's a "general welfare" clause, that pot is a gateway drug, that it's addictive, that it's harmful. Yet there is almost no science to back up these assertions. IF the Fed is going to take away an individual's choice to smoke pot as an alternative to pain medication, you'd think there would be a legitimate, provable reason, but there's not. The argument itself is nothing more than a pissing match between Fed and state, always has been, and these days it's even more so. If we applied such flimsy arguments to other things, for example, booze or cigarettes, it would be considered /wrong/ by most American's, right? If we apply such arguments to sodomy, it is considered /wrong/ by most Americans. If we apply it to SSM, most American's would consider it /wrong/.

Its all the same concept really, individual freedom of choice. The only reason SSM, sodomy, cigarettes, and booze are legal today is basically because of money via lobby groups. Individual pot growers and smokers just don't have the money to lobby as hard. The only reason we still have the 2nd protected is because of the NRA's lobbying, the only reason we have SSM and perhaps even sodomy protection is because of lobbying, the only reason cigarettes and booze are protected is because of lobbying. It's kind of sick if you actually think about it, but that, in a nut shell, is part the slippery slope argument as well. Anywhere the Feds get involved it almost inherently takes power from the people and puts it in the Feds hands, and once in the Feds hands, it is exceptionally difficult, aka expensive, to get it back (see pot or even prohibition) /even/ when the majority of the people /want/ that power back. How many folks are addicted to "prescription" drugs today? You think it really matters to the gov that doctors flippantly addict people to these drugs? Of course not, they could give a shit, just like they don't particularly care about folks smoking pot. It's all about money and pharma has money so they're "allowed" to be drug dealers, they have a quasi-legal right to get people addicted to mind altering drugs because they have money. It's just sad in the grand scheme.

My personal take, no matter how I look at it, I cannot help but ask myself; under what fair and just system should we the people accept that our individual rights are predicated upon money being spent advertising the cause in DC? It's bullshit. I don't even smoke pot, I quit before it was criminalized up here, but I wholly reject the criminalizing of pot. [All drugs to be honest.]

 

[Skylar]

Then you have to go back almost 70 years for an example and even that was temporary. And that was in the middle of a massive war. Demonstrating my point of how rare it is to occur....and how extreme the conditions must be for it to happen.

We have nothing remotely as extreme regarding abortion or marriage here. Pot laws certainly don't qualify.

"Here" as in your state? Which is? Again, maybe you don't notice it because the Feds tend to rule "your way" - they constrict our rights [Alaska,] both individual and "state," all the damn time... I think Alaska has been in battle with the Feds pretty much since the beginning, since we became a state, and really even before then - we were in contention with the feds over shit like forcing all of our imports and exports to go through [a US port] San Fran and Seattle - costing us around twice as much for everything.

Maybe it's just how we, you and I, were raised; were you raised believing the Feds had your best interest in mind, or that they knew best? I was raised the opposite, both by my mother, and my friends up here, that the Feds were constantly causing us problems. ~shrug~

I believe that the retraction of rights is comparatively rare in comparison to the recognition of rights. And the historical record plays that out.

Making the 'slippery slope' argument related to pot laws ridiculously unlikely. As the conflict regarding pot laws is one of powers between the State and Federal government. Not rights of the individual.

I heavily disagree with your wording in that last sentence. The "state" and the "federal government" don't have "rights" only individuals do...

There is simply no mention of 'rights' as it pertains to the States or Federal government in the constitution. In every instance, the respective entities have powers. Only individual people are ever referred to as having rights.

Check the 9th amendment, then check the 10th.

The constitution is crystal clear. And the courts have followed with literally centuries of precedent on the matter. The legal basis of a states power and the legal basis of an individuals rights are completely different, constitutionally.

And any legal dispute on the matter is going to be viewed the lens of that precedent and the constitution.

The "slippery slope" argument can be made with any law that affects individual rights, that's the whole complaint. Neither state /nor/ Fed should have the ability to infringe upon individual rights. State infringement is slightly better because at least there the actual people in that state get to vote on shit that infringes, but Feds are assholes who could give a rats ass what individuals want. That's exactly why the left wants control of DC, because then they can /force/ their personal viewpoints upon the rest of the nation, rather than letting folks govern themselves (via their state.)

There is no basis of 'rights' in smoking pot in the current legal dispute. There is no legally recognized right to smoke pot in say, California. The basis of the dispute between State laws and Federal laws is one of powers exclusively. The supremacy of federal law over state law.

The reason the slippery slope argument doesn't work in this instance is that assumes a dispute on state and federal powers has immediate and direct implication for individual rights. This is nonsense, as rights trump both state and federal law, sitting above both.

I'm not at all surprised that you don't want to talk about the slippery slope argument with historical reference, that's the proof that it happens.

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.

 

[EverCurious]

"Here" as in your state? Which is? Again, maybe you don't notice it because the Feds tend to rule "your way" - they constrict our rights [Alaska,] both individual and "state," all the damn time... I think Alaska has been in battle with the Feds pretty much since the beginning, since we became a state, and really even before then - we were in contention with the feds over shit like forcing all of our imports and exports to go through [a US port] San Fran and Seattle - costing us around twice as much for everything.

Maybe it's just how we, you and I, were raised; were you raised believing the Feds had your best interest in mind, or that they knew best? I was raised the opposite, both by my mother, and my friends up here, that the Feds were constantly causing us problems. ~shrug~

I believe that the retraction of rights is comparatively rare in comparison to the recognition of rights. And the historical record plays that out.

Making the 'slippery slope' argument related to pot laws ridiculously unlikely. As the conflict regarding pot laws is one of powers between the State and Federal government. Not rights of the individual.

I heavily disagree with your wording in that last sentence. The "state" and the "federal government" don't have "rights" only individuals do...

There is simply no mention of 'rights' as it pertains to the States or Federal government in the constitution. In every instance, the respective entities have powers. Only individual people are ever referred to as having rights.

Check the 9th amendment, then check the 10th.

The constitution is crystal clear. And the courts have followed with literally centuries of precedent on the matter. The legal basis of a states power and the legal basis of an individuals rights are completely different, constitutionally.

And any legal dispute on the matter is going to be viewed the lens of that precedent and the constitution.

The "slippery slope" argument can be made with any law that affects individual rights, that's the whole complaint. Neither state /nor/ Fed should have the ability to infringe upon individual rights. State infringement is slightly better because at least there the actual people in that state get to vote on shit that infringes, but Feds are assholes who could give a rats ass what individuals want. That's exactly why the left wants control of DC, because then they can /force/ their personal viewpoints upon the rest of the nation, rather than letting folks govern themselves (via their state.)

There is no basis of 'rights' in smoking pot in the current legal dispute. There is no legally recognized right to smoke pot in say, California. The basis of the dispute between State laws and Federal laws is one of powers exclusively. The supremacy of federal law over state law.

The reason the slippery slope argument doesn't work in this instance is that assumes a dispute on state and federal powers has immediate and direct implication for individual rights. This is nonsense, as rights trump both state and federal law, sitting above both.

I'm not at all surprised that you don't want to talk about the slippery slope argument with historical reference, that's the proof that it happens.

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.

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~

 

[Skylar]

I believe that the retraction of rights is comparatively rare in comparison to the recognition of rights. And the historical record plays that out.

Making the 'slippery slope' argument related to pot laws ridiculously unlikely. As the conflict regarding pot laws is one of powers between the State and Federal government. Not rights of the individual.

I heavily disagree with your wording in that last sentence. The "state" and the "federal government" don't have "rights" only individuals do...

There is simply no mention of 'rights' as it pertains to the States or Federal government in the constitution. In every instance, the respective entities have powers. Only individual people are ever referred to as having rights.

Check the 9th amendment, then check the 10th.

The constitution is crystal clear. And the courts have followed with literally centuries of precedent on the matter. The legal basis of a states power and the legal basis of an individuals rights are completely different, constitutionally.

And any legal dispute on the matter is going to be viewed the lens of that precedent and the constitution.

The "slippery slope" argument can be made with any law that affects individual rights, that's the whole complaint. Neither state /nor/ Fed should have the ability to infringe upon individual rights. State infringement is slightly better because at least there the actual people in that state get to vote on shit that infringes, but Feds are assholes who could give a rats ass what individuals want. That's exactly why the left wants control of DC, because then they can /force/ their personal viewpoints upon the rest of the nation, rather than letting folks govern themselves (via their state.)

There is no basis of 'rights' in smoking pot in the current legal dispute. There is no legally recognized right to smoke pot in say, California. The basis of the dispute between State laws and Federal laws is one of powers exclusively. The supremacy of federal law over state law.

The reason the slippery slope argument doesn't work in this instance is that assumes a dispute on state and federal powers has immediate and direct implication for individual rights. This is nonsense, as rights trump both state and federal law, sitting above both.

I'm not at all surprised that you don't want to talk about the slippery slope argument with historical reference, that's the proof that it happens.

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.

That is the argument about slippery slope dude, how can you not get it?

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.

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?

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.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

If states get away with disregarding federal law and continue to legalize pot at the state level, state legislatures can then arrest abortion providers if they enact state laws prohibiting abortion. The Fed be damned.
Pothead lefties better watch out for what they wish for.

You are right in some facts, but Federal Law is the "First Law" and the States can pass any law they want. The States do have the power to change the Constitution by State Vote like the Woman Right law that sits just one vote short of being passed. This is done by a Constitution Convention meeting. Pot could be changed in the same manner. Looking at the current conditions they could have one on the Birth Problems and Pot, Terms in Office. The Limitations on Term in office was struck down on the fact that the time in office was voted down by the Supreme Court and was noted could only be changed by a Constitution Convention.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

I believe that the retraction of rights is comparatively rare in comparison to the recognition of rights. And the historical record plays that out.

Making the 'slippery slope' argument related to pot laws ridiculously unlikely. As the conflict regarding pot laws is one of powers between the State and Federal government. Not rights of the individual.

I heavily disagree with your wording in that last sentence. The "state" and the "federal government" don't have "rights" only individuals do...

There is simply no mention of 'rights' as it pertains to the States or Federal government in the constitution. In every instance, the respective entities have powers. Only individual people are ever referred to as having rights.

Check the 9th amendment, then check the 10th.

The constitution is crystal clear. And the courts have followed with literally centuries of precedent on the matter. The legal basis of a states power and the legal basis of an individuals rights are completely different, constitutionally.

And any legal dispute on the matter is going to be viewed the lens of that precedent and the constitution.

The "slippery slope" argument can be made with any law that affects individual rights, that's the whole complaint. Neither state /nor/ Fed should have the ability to infringe upon individual rights. State infringement is slightly better because at least there the actual people in that state get to vote on shit that infringes, but Feds are assholes who could give a rats ass what individuals want. That's exactly why the left wants control of DC, because then they can /force/ their personal viewpoints upon the rest of the nation, rather than letting folks govern themselves (via their state.)

There is no basis of 'rights' in smoking pot in the current legal dispute. There is no legally recognized right to smoke pot in say, California. The basis of the dispute between State laws and Federal laws is one of powers exclusively. The supremacy of federal law over state law.

The reason the slippery slope argument doesn't work in this instance is that assumes a dispute on state and federal powers has immediate and direct implication for individual rights. This is nonsense, as rights trump both state and federal law, sitting above both.

I'm not at all surprised that you don't want to talk about the slippery slope argument with historical reference, that's the proof that it happens.

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.

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~

You have it almost right. The States control the Abort laws and the Feds should not of taken over the subject, but the SOB did and this is not the only thing they jambed down our throats. The State of Alabama has had many things forced on us. The Feds are now working to make Police Departments follow their idea on how to enforce the law. Well keep voting and what ever it takes to save yourselves. Alaska is worth saving.

 

[Moonglow]

I find it laughable and illogical to make free medicine illegal while selling toxins and poisons is an astute procedure.

 

[Moonglow]

What ever happened to individual freedom? Oh yeah after the Native tribes were defeated and subjugated to the will of the few then the rest of the population in the US was to be subjected to the will of a few in power......Yet we must show our patriotism and total support for the police state.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

I heavily disagree with your wording in that last sentence. The "state" and the "federal government" don't have "rights" only individuals do...

There is simply no mention of 'rights' as it pertains to the States or Federal government in the constitution. In every instance, the respective entities have powers. Only individual people are ever referred to as having rights.

Check the 9th amendment, then check the 10th.

The constitution is crystal clear. And the courts have followed with literally centuries of precedent on the matter. The legal basis of a states power and the legal basis of an individuals rights are completely different, constitutionally.

And any legal dispute on the matter is going to be viewed the lens of that precedent and the constitution.

The "slippery slope" argument can be made with any law that affects individual rights, that's the whole complaint. Neither state /nor/ Fed should have the ability to infringe upon individual rights. State infringement is slightly better because at least there the actual people in that state get to vote on shit that infringes, but Feds are assholes who could give a rats ass what individuals want. That's exactly why the left wants control of DC, because then they can /force/ their personal viewpoints upon the rest of the nation, rather than letting folks govern themselves (via their state.)

There is no basis of 'rights' in smoking pot in the current legal dispute. There is no legally recognized right to smoke pot in say, California. The basis of the dispute between State laws and Federal laws is one of powers exclusively. The supremacy of federal law over state law.

The reason the slippery slope argument doesn't work in this instance is that assumes a dispute on state and federal powers has immediate and direct implication for individual rights. This is nonsense, as rights trump both state and federal law, sitting above both.

I'm not at all surprised that you don't want to talk about the slippery slope argument with historical reference, that's the proof that it happens.

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.

That is the argument about slippery slope dude, how can you not get it?

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.

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?

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.

WWII and Japanese internment.was a violation of the Constitutional Rights of American Citizens. It caused the loss of property, and wealth. I also note that FDR had a friend called Herts *(sp?) and he bought up the land and houses and made a ton of money. He also owned a Newspaper empire.

 

[emilynghiem]

If states get away with disregarding federal law and continue to legalize pot at the state level, state legislatures can then arrest abortion providers if they enact state laws prohibiting abortion. The Fed be damned.
Pothead lefties better watch out for what they wish for.

You are right in some facts, but Federal Law is the "First Law" and the States can pass any law they want. The States do have the power to change the Constitution by State Vote like the Woman Right law that sits just one vote short of being passed. This is done by a Constitution Convention meeting. Pot could be changed in the same manner. Looking at the current conditions they could have one on the Birth Problems and Pot, Terms in Office. The Limitations on Term in office was struck down on the fact that the time in office was voted down by the Supreme Court and was noted could only be changed by a Constitution Convention.

Yes and no, Dan Stubbs
The States can only pass faith based/biased laws (such as laws on marriage) IF it doesn't violate the equal beliefs of other citizens in the minority.
People have to AGREE on laws that involve any "faith based beliefs" or else this ends up getting contested or struck down
if people's beliefs are violated and they petition, sue or lobby to change that law to correct the unconstitutional bias.

In the case of Roe V Wade, the state laws were struck down as unconstitutional for violating due process.
In the case of marriage laws, the bans against same sex marriage were struck down as unconstitutional (I would have argued this was based on faith based policy
that govt is not supposed to establish without consent of the governed citizens and taxpayers)

As for laws on pot, on birth control/reproduction health/abortion,
I would suggest that States adopt a third level of law, aside from just civil or criminal,
for "health and safety" and correction by counseling for any complaints of "abuses or threats of mental, medical or physical harm."

This would decriminalize issues of abusing drugs, abusing sex or abusing relationships
that are all personal private matters best resolved by Counseling which Govt cannot regulate or conduct.
But Govt could REQUIRE correctional intervention to resolve complaints of abuse or threats of harm.

This would also keep the decision making, responsibility and PROCESS of addressing abuse and addiction issues
to the CHOICE OF THE PEOPLE.

Dan Stubbs, given that the solutions to diagnosing, treating and curing the CAUSES of abuse and addiction
tend to be managed most effectively by SPIRITUAL counseling and healing, this is NOT the realm of Govt!

If we keep relying on Govt to decide these policies, that's where it just gets criminalized and costs taxpayers
to backlog our Courts and Prisons dealing with the problems after crimes have occurred which doesn't solve anything.

The responsibility has to be returned to the people, so we can choose to invest resources
into better health care and medical assistance instead of wasting billions more on prosecution and incarceration that can all be prevented.

The INCENTIVE to reform the approach is the Democrats want to fund universal health care.
So this is the first big step in that direction: to start funding solutions through medical education, training and services
and quit wasting billions on failed criminal justice programs "after the fact" - not just de-criminalizing drug addictions
and trafficking to fund endless drug wars, but also de-criminalizing mental illness to waste millions on each death penalty case.