I don’t know that your second question makes too much sense. It’s sort of like asking whether I am a Constitutional absolutist. That Amendment states:
Let try to re-word it. You said you were not a “states rights absolutist”. Are situations where you are not absolutist in that regard, situations where we either
- are dealing with a power delegated to Feds by the Constitution
and/or
- are dealing with a power prohibited to the states by the Constitution
When you say you are not a “states rights absolutist”, you mean that you are not pro-states-rights in situations where the Constitution is not pro-states-rights, correct?
When I say I am not a “states rights absolutist” I mean the states don’t always win. Health insurance was an example.
It does not mean I think the federal government should exercise its authority to the maximum extent under the Constitution. There are areas where the federal government can act under the Constitution but I think should exercise restraint and instead respect state laws (eg marijuana).
How about medical marijuana?
Nothing in the Constitution says I can’t smoke pot, medicinal or otherwise. If the mistake (conspiracy?) of the Drug War is undone, states would have to decide what to do about drug use – and what they should decide (but they won’t because $$$) is to stay the hell out of everyone’s lives.
Laws surrounding cultivating marijuana, brewing alcohol, or producing any other substance are all governmental overreach.
There are enforcement problems with leaving certain things like that up to the states. If one state says you can’t produce or distribute pot, and the neighboring state says you can, people who live near enough to the neighbor will just go over there, purchase it, and bring it back. It’s a major reason why using Chicago as a proof that gun control doesn’t work is flawed. People can still go to the suburbs to buy them and it really isn’t that inconvenient to do so.
Having certain things handled at the federal level solves issues with enforcing laws that cross state lines.