7 comments

• 

  Scott

  1 year ago

  The City Attorney and the District Attorney are different offices (and different people). But Long Beach also has a City Prosecutor (yet a different office and different office holder). Mr. Shannon is the City Attorney, not the District Attorney.
  reply
• 

  Rachel Powers

  1 year ago

  You are right!
  
  And I am an ass.
  
  I'm about to make some fixes, with a very red face.
  reply
• 

  LBRez

  1 year ago

  I am very much a supporter of limited Federal powers and states' rights having as much precedent as possible. We have several opportunities with specific issues to be hypocritical in our preference for states rights over Federal rights, or more precisely we should saw state jurisdiction over federal federal jurisdiction as I feel the word "rights" is tossed about much too freely.
  
  I agree that the legality and use of marijuana should be a state's jurisidiction and the Feds have the right to jurisprudence and laws of interstate and international trafficking.
  
  My question to those who support the right of California to have control of marijuana use and laws to said effect superceeding those of the Federal government is this in regards to your affinity for strong states' rights on this issue: Do you feel that states should have similar rights and control over abortions? Gay marriage? Should Kansas be able to severely restrict the conditions under which and abortion may take place? If Alaska passes legislation that allows same sex marriages or unions to replicate exactly those between man and woman, does North Dakota have to recognize those same sex unions? Do you feel that a California resident receiving medical marijuana treatment should be allowed to be treated in Utah where they may not have similar laws? Where is the line?
  
  Picking and choosing which laws, or issues should be left to the states and which to the Federal government becomes sticky when we take specific issues we support and how the application of states' rights v. federal rights most benefits our position. Thanks for the artilce, these discussions beyond the single issue of marijuana, but to the rights and areas of authority of local, state and federal powers are critical to our being a country of laws based on the Constitution.
  reply
• 

  D. Kelson

  1 year ago

  Without being a lawyer, let alone having a degree in constitutional law, it seems pretty simple to recognize that when the rights of individuals are curtailed in some fashion (reduced access to medical procedures for certain citizens, reduced capabilities to form loving financial relationships between certain citizens, etc), a state runs the risk of running afoul of equal protection, which is guaranteed by the Constitution. Regulating or restricting access to Herb has no connection with Constitituional guarantees other than the guarantee that Congress's decision to stick its nose in this business is to be respected because the Supreme Court says Congress can.
  
  So I commend you for posing the question, and I will now refrain from casually bandying about the "states' rights" phrasings, and will stick to what are hopefully more cogent arguments.
  reply
• 

  LBRez

  1 year ago

  What about the death penalty? Take the same circumstances, let's say killing of a peace officer while committing another crime (I wish this were only hypothetical but unfortunately it happens). In Texas or California the killer can get the death penalty, in New York or New Jersey there is no death penalty. Each state has determined their own extent of equal protection and just punishment. Some argue that the same determination on the state level should apply in the case of abortion. Some states may ban, others allow under certain circumstances (danger to mother, incest, rape), other may allow it as long as the mother desires it. In both instances, taking of life--I know arguably for some/many on the abortion issue--is involved, on one side (execution) states are allowed to self-determine; on the other (abortion) federal government has precedence and states that have tried to ban or severly restrict the practice have been over turned.
  
  I find the juxtaposition of these two issues very interesting to look at in how supporters/detractors divide. Typically pro-abortion supporters are more liberal and are anti-death penalty and anti-abortion supporters are more conservative and are pro-death penalty. The first class generally wants federal government to have final say and all states to allow abortion and ban the death penalty; the second class wants the opposite, or at minimum allow each state to decide for itself.
  
  Breaking the Constitutional powers of the federal and states governments down to specific issues and then following to the supporters and detractors is very interesting to me. As the old cliche goes conservatives want the (federal) government out of everything but the bedroom and liberals want the (federal) government in everything but the bedroom!
  reply
• 

  D. Kelson

  1 year ago

  I think that your end summary misses the point for us liberals. We tend to want the federal government involved when states are messing with people's rights. And while I am unabashedly opposed to the death penalty in all cases, the fact is that the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection only applies citizens (this is a position with which I do not agree, but is a stance that the Supreme Court has consistently upheld). Given this stance, the unborn are not yet citizens for whom equal protection is a right guaranteed by the Constitution (yet, at least). One has to either be born here (i.e. born) or naturalized via some other process (which so far only occurs after one has been born). So your example of the death penalty is perfect --- the states enforce it unequally and thus it does violate equal protection in the most heinous fashion. Though this is the weakest argument against the death penality, I'd prefer to keep this discussion to the question you posed: how us liberals try to rationalize our views of "states rights" vs how conservatives view them.
  
  But since I am not qualified as a Constituional scholar or as a lawyer, I am probably going to get reamed by people who are.
  reply
• 

  LBRez

  1 year ago

  DK: Let them ream, I enjoy your viewpoints and the opportunity to exam these issues that have been examined for decades in the case of abortion and longer in the case of the death penalty. I only wish that more people would examine and think about the big part of the issues; i.e. states jurisdiction v federal jurisdiction; what is the role of each level of government; what is the role of council representative, governor, senator, president. Too many voters, and non-voters, care only about the moment and the singular part of the singular issue on this day; they don't seem to think about how the issue is solved or dealt with today in relation to what it will mean five, ten or even fifty years in the future. Thanks DK.
  reply