Search Comments

States Rights

Posted: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 7:07 PM EST - Item ID: 518

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Just because we believe in the majority rule concept which is the bed rock of our democratic society, we should not make any laws that are designed to control the behavior of all the people within all the states unless those laws are for the good of all the people within our republic. And the people of our republic should be the ones who decide if the laws are good for all the people or just for some of them.

A good example of such a law that is good for all the people would be the death penalty. It would be inappropriate to say that murdering someone in one state is punishable by lethal injection but that same crime committed in another state is not punishable by lethal injection but instead punishable by life imprisonment.

Gun control would be another such law. If you can own a gun in one state you should be able to own a gun in any state. Especially since Americans are free to travel from one state to another without any customs inspection process. They are free to carry whatever they want within their vehicle or on their person and take it from one state to another without anyone knowing about the contents therein.

We must carefully pick and choose which laws fall into this category.

An example of a law that is not good for all the people but is designed specifically for a region or state within our country would be the legalization of the sale, distribution and consumption of alcohol. We have some states that do not want alcohol to be part of their social fabric and have decided to not allow it within their borders. By contrast, there are other states that will allow it to be part of their local culture. Legalized gambling would be another good example.

My opinion is that when faced with a choice to create a law at the country level or at the state level we should first come up with a mechanism to determine which of these two categories the proposed law fits into.

Let's take the example of legalizing marijuana.

Some states want it legalized for personal consumption purposes like social entertainment or medical treatments to increase patient appetite and reduce the side effects of chemotherapy. Who is to decide whether this law is good for all the people or good for just some of the people? You will always be able to hear good arguments for it one way or the other. But how do we figure out which argument is the prevailing argument that is shared by the majority of the people within our country or within a state?

A simple rule to help in this decision is that when a proposed law like this comes along and the country is well divided on the issue then it is probably a states rights issue and therefore should be left to the states to decide what to do about it. When the country is not well divided on the issue it is a federal law and should be acted on at that level. The question is: how do we decide on whether the country is well divided on the issue or not? And furthermore, whether divided on the issue or not, how do we determine if they are for it or against it?

My proposal is to have countrywide referendums during our presidential campaigns to decide these issues. More people participate in the voting process during our presidential elections than in any other election. What better mechanism is there than this to find out what the people want for their states and for their country.

The people of each state should have the right to request a referendum to be placed on the ballot. They should be able to go to their legislators and get them to submit their referendum to the national general election board for placement on the ballot. We need to create a process for them to be able to do this. It should be the same process for each state so no one state has an advantage over another as to how referendums are placed on the general election ballot.

The question within this referendum should be stated in such a way that it gives the voter a clear choice on the issue. Are you for it, against it or not sure? For example, "Do you believe that marijuana should be legalized? Please select either Yes, No or Not Sure." If a clear majority of voters (60% or more) within the country are for it or against it, than it should be passed on to our congressional representatives in Washington for them to pass it or reject it as a federal law. If their is no clear majority of voters (less than 60%) that are for it or against it, then the state's representatives should be granted the right to vote for or against its implementation into their respective states.

By creating laws this way, we maintain the ability of the people to continue to exercise the majority rule concept and control what laws are implemented at the federal level via their representatives in Washington. We are also still giving them the right to maintain their respective local societies in the manner that they have grown accustomed to by allowing their local state representatives to vote on issues that are near and dear to the people they govern.

Records 1 to 1 of 1