Not that long ago, opposition to the devolution of power from the states and the people to the ruling class in the Nation’s Capital was racist, among other things. And if you wanted to use your first amendment right of association to pursue such ideas the IRS might sweat you like a drug smuggler caught at Turkish customs.
But when a Republican Attorney General says he intends to enforce the law as passed by Congress and signed by some previous president, Democrat’s have a come-to-the Tenth amendment moment.
Related: Yes, The Feds Can Arrest and Charge Elected Leaders of Sanctuary Cities with a Crime
In incensed outrage at Jeff Sessions, the Left has embraced something out of convenience that it has normally denounced: states’ rights. When the Obama Administration was nationalizing America’s healthcare system, nationalizing same-sex marriage by prodding the Supreme Court, dismantling religious liberty, and ordering schools to maintain gender-neutral bathroom policies, liberals did not give a flip about federalism. Now, states that have legalized pot in spite of federal law are in legal limbo, and liberals are up in arms about states’ rights. It’s a complete farce.
The federal prohibition against the recreational use of marijuana, as Red State goes on to point out, has been the law since 1937. And much like the so-called sanctuary movement, agree or disagree, the constitution’s supremacy clause gives the Feds the power to enforce federal law. States cannot un-write it. They can only elect representatives to Congress with an eye to remake it. But,
According to one U.S. House leader, there are less than 100 votes in the House of Representatives for such a measure. Without federal legalization of recreational marijuana, citizens in states like California and Colorado are skating on thin ice when it comes to opening marijuana businesses and/or carrying marijuana across state lines.
Advocates, and libertarians, in particular, dare not trust this sudden enthusiasm by progressives. There is nothing in their manifold of priorities that support federalism or state’s rights. In fact, their goals cannot survive under such terms. Their motivations must lie elsewhere.
As we’ve pointed out here, state-level marijuana laws negate your right under federal law to legally own or carry a firearm.
Neo-liberalism abhors the right to self-defense. And while they are not big fans of State’s Rights or the Rule of Law they’ll put on a show if medical marijuana and decriminalization policies advance the progressives disarmament agenda.
That’s just how they roll.
