Monuments, medical marijuana, Obamacare and Roe v. Wade

Monuments, medical marijuana, Obamacare and Roe v. Wade

Rick Dow

What do all of these hot button issues have in common? The answer quite simply is they represent the battle between state rights and federal rights.

A strong but limited federal government, which focuses only on its written enumerated constitutional powers, is how our system was set up. Support of a federal law over a state law is asserting the "supremacy clause" Article VI Section 2 of the U. S. Constitution. Conversely, each individual state has the right and responsibility to make most of the decisions, thus favoring the 10th Amendment and "… powers … are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. " The lack of consistency in adhering to the original framework has lead to mass confusion among citizens and elected officials alike.

James Madison, the primary author of our constitution, wrote, "Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serves to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front." Madison's comment seems extraordinarily germane today.

Given this foundation should the executive branch of the federal government be able to set aside land without the consent of Congress? This is not in the spirit of the system of checks and balances which was referenced in Madison's quote. What recourse do states have to challenge this abrogation of their rights? If you support the power of the federal government to acquire land through the Antiquities Act, then you are agreeing that federal law trumps state law.

This logic would contradict the alleged right of states to ignore federal law when it comes to "medical" marijuana. If you want to make marijuana legal for recreational use, the "medical" part is just an intermediate step. Simply petition the government to change the federal Controlled Substance Act of 1970. Congress has amended it before, so if a persuasive case can be made, it will again be amended.

The truth of the matter is that the initiatives and referenda process and the Antiquities Act were both championed by President Theodore Roosevelt, a Progressive-Republican. He felt burdened by our representative form of government, which makes it purposefully difficult to institute swift and dramatic "change. " This is exactly what the Founding Fathers wanted to guard against. Hence, the seeds of our current discontent were sown with the adoption of ballot initiatives, a direct democracy disaster and the power to grab land without due process under the guise of the Antiquities Act (both passed in 1906).

Up next, our two United States senators and president made sure that Obamacare got passed. It is the law to all Americans. Well, that is not completely true. So far waivers have been granted to 2.1 million Americans (and the number keeps growing) representing 733 different entities. Unions represent roughly 40 percent of this list. Since the majority of union leadership supported Obama in the 2008 election and provided widespread support for Obamacare, you would think that they would also embrace this new law. Additionally, four states have been granted waivers as well. The rationale for mandating citizens to purchase a good or service in the first place was said to be supported by the greatly misconstrued "Commerce Clause" of the U. S. Constitution, Article 1 Section 8. But two federal judges have struck down the mandate (section 1501.) This is especially burdensome for its supporters because the law, as written, does not have a severability clause. Therefore, if the decision stands, the whole law will be overturned. A proper use of the Commerce Clause would instead be to override the state barriers, which prevent citizens from purchasing a health insurance policy across state lines.

Finally, if the federal decision in Roe v. Wade was overturned, it would not outlaw abortion. It would return that decision to each individual state to decide according to the preference of their respective citizenry. Few other issues are demagogued and obfuscated more than this one.

Ours is a country founded on unalienable rights, which are granted by our Creator. Ours is a government that can only function with the consent of the governed. A return to our founding principles is the only way to reconcile and rectify this morass of incongruent policies and laws.

(Rick Dow is a freelance writer from Havre, Mont.)

What do all of these hot button issues have in common? The answer quite simply is they represent the battle between state rights and federal rights.

A strong but limited federal government, which focuses only on its written enumerated constitutional powers, is how our system was set up. Support of a federal law over a state law is asserting the "supremacy clause" Article VI Section 2 of the U. S. Constitution. Conversely, each individual state has the right and responsibility to make most of the decisions, thus favoring the 10th Amendment and "… powers … are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. " The lack of consistency in adhering to the original framework has lead to mass confusion among citizens and elected officials alike.

James Madison, the primary author of our constitution, wrote, "Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serves to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front." Madison's comment seems extraordinarily germane today.

Given this foundation should the executive branch of the federal government be able to set aside land without the consent of Congress? This is not in the spirit of the system of checks and balances which was referenced in Madison's quote. What recourse do states have to challenge this abrogation of their rights? If you support the power of the federal government to acquire land through the Antiquities Act, then you are agreeing that federal law trumps state law.

This logic would contradict the alleged right of states to ignore federal law when it comes to "medical" marijuana. If you want to make marijuana legal for recreational use, the "medical" part is just an intermediate step. Simply petition the government to change the federal Controlled Substance Act of 1970. Congress has amended it before, so if a persuasive case can be made, it will again be amended.

The truth of the matter is that the initiatives and referenda process and the Antiquities Act were both championed by President Theodore Roosevelt, a Progressive-Republican. He felt burdened by our representative form of government, which makes it purposefully difficult to institute swift and dramatic "change. " This is exactly what the Founding Fathers wanted to guard against. Hence, the seeds of our current discontent were sown with the adoption of ballot initiatives, a direct democracy disaster and the power to grab land without due process under the guise of the Antiquities Act (both passed in 1906).

Up next, our two United States senators and president made sure that Obamacare got passed. It is the law to all Americans. Well, that is not completely true. So far waivers have been granted to 2.1 million Americans (and the number keeps growing) representing 733 different entities. Unions represent roughly 40 percent of this list. Since the majority of union leadership supported Obama in the 2008 election and provided widespread support for Obamacare, you would think that they would also embrace this new law. Additionally, four states have been granted waivers as well. The rationale for mandating citizens to purchase a good or service in the first place was said to be supported by the greatly misconstrued "Commerce Clause" of the U. S. Constitution, Article 1 Section 8. But two federal judges have struck down the mandate (section 1501.) This is especially burdensome for its supporters because the law, as written, does not have a severability clause. Therefore, if the decision stands, the whole law will be overturned. A proper use of the Commerce Clause would instead be to override the state barriers, which prevent citizens from purchasing a health insurance policy across state lines.

Finally, if the federal decision in Roe v. Wade was overturned, it would not outlaw abortion. It would return that decision to each individual state to decide according to the preference of their respective citizenry. Few other issues are demagogued and obfuscated more than this one.

Ours is a country founded on unalienable rights, which are granted by our Creator. Ours is a government that can only function with the consent of the governed. A return to our founding principles is the only way to reconcile and rectify this morass of incongruent policies and laws.

(Rick Dow is a freelance writer from Havre, Mont.)