Posted on 11/04/2009 7:26:26 PM PST by indianrightwinger
It is too hard for me to swallow the fact that a properly passed law in Maine was repealed in a public referendum. This just seems wrong. The proper course of action was to throw out the bums who passed the law in the first place and then have a subsequent legislature / Governer repeal the law. While the "outcome" in this case was favorable to conservative point of view, it is impossible for me to see how it benefits the conservative movement in the long run. Remember, gay marriage was made legal in Maine by the elected government - NOT juducial fiat like in other cases. I am all for public referendums on judicial activist rulings that "make" law. Maine case is utterly different.
Well bugger me!
The first anti-drug law was in SF related to opium and it was biased against the Chinese, not the Blacks. By the 30's, ALL states had anti-marijuana laws.
The law has been repealed— by the voters. Maybe next year the perps will lose their jobs. But the referendum is in place so that the People, the ultimate BOSS, can undo the mischief of their hirelings.
Conversely, I can't say that I'd not endorse a process just because it might, at some point in the future, produce a disfavourable outcome.
Referenda exist as an outlet for the expression of the will of the ultimate earthly source of sovereignty in a representative system - the people.
If the people pass a law you don't like, then you can either lump it, try to change peoples' minds, or move somewhere else. Referenda are a quite legitimate expression of the rights of the people of the States under the 10th amendment.
By 1914, the Harrison Act was passed, which was the beginnings of the War on Some Drugs at the Federal level, for the reason of controlling the minorities and they were not shy about saying so...
Each drug was associated with a minority group, then demonized by saying that its usage would induce white women to have sex with the men from that group. It was really vile. Our current WoSD is less OBVIOUSLY biased, but is just as evil.
Bad example because Tiger is good enough to win without his driver, but I get your point.
By 1914 most of the states had laws against cocaine, heroin, opium, etc and 1 in 400 US citizens were addicts.
Most of the addicts were women that were 'prescribed drugs to relieve 'women's' problems.
How often does one legislature redo a previous ones laws. In a case like this, ten years down the road, a social change would be engraved in stone. No one would touch it.
As with both your points, my question is the same: Where is government granted any authority to ban/regulate/proscribe the use of drugs or anything else for that matter? I have YET to find it in the Constitution. As for states, the only authority I can figure out is where municipalities and counties might get by with regulating PUBLIC BEHAVIORS while under the influence, but nothing more. Certainly no banning/proscribing/etc. etc.
It was perfectly legitimate and within the rule of law.
It is better this way. The law didn’t take effect, so, no hassles about with gays being marriedwhen you throw out the bums next year.
In Maine on Tuesday there was the gay marriage vote and the medical marijuana vote. The gay marriage repeal passed 53-47. Medical marijuana passed 59-41. No on repeal gay marriage got 267574 votes, yes on medical marijuana got 330490. Medical marijuana got 63k votes (at least) from people who voted to repeal gay marriage.
Coming soon to Maine - California style marijuana dispensaries (that’s what was approved on Tuesday).
I think a Democrat, Wilson, was President when the Harrison Act was passed. Roosevelt, a Democrat, was President when the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 (or whatever it was called) was passed. It seems to me that this anti drug stuff was started by the Democrats, not Conservative Republicans.
I am talking about a federal drug laws.
It’s ironic that the public voted against something that their elected representatives passed into law.
Wonder what the disconnect is.
I tend to agree with you though. Direct Democracy didn’t work for us in the past. No reason to think it’ll work any better now.
Yes..it's a constant struggle.
Play it again, and again, ....
The enemy never gives up, we can't either.
Gay rights advocates across the country are regrouping after a crushing defeat at the ballot box in Maine, pledging to continue their state-by-state effort to promote marriage equality and to turn their attention to a federal court..
If it is enacted before the 2010 elections, it will be too late. It would be tantamount to closing the barn door after the horse has already gotten out. You'd have some revenge for throwing out the bums who wrecked the republic, but the republic will have been irreparably wrecked.
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress;...
It was landmark U.S. Supreme Court precedent Reynolds v. United States in 1878 that made “separation of church and state” a dubiously legitimate point of case law, but more importantly; it confirmed the Constitutionality in statutory regulation of marriage practices.
"Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? [98 U.S. 145, 167] To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.