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?
The FDA should regulate that. In states where pot is legal it may not make much of a difference, but allow people in other states to have approved medication.
I’m not in favor of legalization and I never had an interest in the stuff. So my desire for the federal government to step back isn’t self-serving. It’s partly based on my view that the federal government is overstepping the bounds of its authority and partly on the view that there is value in states forging their own paths, especially where an activity is so broadly practiced with relatively little harm.
Okay, so the federal government can’t ban you from imbibing a substance, but the state can? Why is that any better? This is what I mean when I complain that states’ rights is bullshit when it’s all about the rights that states can deprive you of.