Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFederalist Rolling Papers
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/12/oklahoma_and_nebraska_sue_colorado_a_hypocritical_lawsuit_could_undermine.htmlFair-weather federalists: Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, left, andNebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning.
The attorneys general of Nebraska and Oklahoma have decided that they should have a say over what happens in the state of Colorado. Just before the holidays, the two men, Jon Bruning and Scott Pruitt, filed a lawsuit against Colorado for legalizing marijuana. The suit is a long shot, but some respected legal scholars think Bruning and Pruitt have a fighting chance. Should they succeed, their case could lead to epic battles among the states over regulation of guns and pollutionand give Congress unprecedented power.
Bruning and Pruitts crusade against Colorados marijuana laws conflicts with their ostensible support of states rights. As attorney general of Nebraska, Bruning has fought Obamacare with the fanaticism of a zealot, arguing in a legal challenge that the law tramped upon states rights. As attorney general of Oklahoma, Pruitt has led the next major challenge to the act, insisting that the federal government must respect states decisions not to set up their own exchanges and to deny their citizens cheap access to good insurance. Both men believe their states have a right to control their own health insurance systems.
But when another state decides to experiment with a new drug policy, Bruning and Pruitts support for state sovereignty dries up. They are arguing that Congresss prohibition against marijuana should force every state to prohibit it as well. (These attorneys general arent opposed to all intoxicants. Their position on marijuana might have something to do with the fact that both Bruning and Pruitt have received significant campaign contributions from alcohol industries.)
This strange little lawsuit against Colorado is so astonishingly hypocritical, so brazenly antipodal to Bruning and Pruitts professed philosophy, that even admirers of both men are aghast. Case Western Laws Jonathan H. Adler, the mastermind behind the latest Obamacare suit, noted with disgust that it is as if their arguments about federalism and state autonomy were not arguments of principle but rather an opportunistic effort to challenge federal policies they dont like on other grounds. Georgetown Laws Randy Barnett, who brought the first Obamacare suit from the fringe to the mainstream, wrote that I see no other way to interpret Nebraska and Oklahomas lawsuits than as an example of fair weather federalism. (Federalism describes the balance of power between states and the central government; self-described federalists favor increased state autonomy.)
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
1 replies, 679 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (0)
ReplyReply to this post
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Federalist Rolling Papers (Original Post)
xchrom
Jan 2015
OP
Oh well, its not like the 10th amendment was ever seriously considered anyways.
TampaAnimusVortex
Jan 2015
#1
TampaAnimusVortex
(785 posts)1. Oh well, its not like the 10th amendment was ever seriously considered anyways.
Most politicians and people consider the central document that only grants very specific powers to the feds as "guidelines" anyways.
No document is going to keep a bunch of corrupt politicians in check.