Randomizing: Volume 2

We are endlessly fascinating!  California, on the verge of essentially legalizing Pot, is now threatened with a Federal law suit, no doubt based on the Federal supremacy clause.  To defend their law California must argue principals of Federalism, they must argue that they have the right to supplant Federal law.  California must present a case in support of original Constitutional intent.  They will have to take the same philosophical position as Conservative states fighting the Health Care legislation.  Technicalities aside, left and right must support original Constitutional intent to prevail in diametrically opposed types of legislative justification.  Fascinating!!!  Might there be some common ground if both points of view have to go to the same place in support of their arguments?  It could be a start.   Might that be a place to eliminate the number of issues in passionate dispute?  If both sides must make essentially the same argument logic demands that there is some level of fundamental agreement.  If not, it’s just tactics and by definition transitory to changing conditions.  If we agree on Federalism as a valid interpretation we seriously mitigate Federal power in a dramatic departure from the trends of the past 60 years.  Control will, by definition, gravitate a step further towards the people. 

Chris Matthews, featured in promos for MSNBC, wants a great debate; Chris, really?  What exactly have we been engaged in for the past three to four years generally and the last 20 months specifically?  Chris, political animal that he is, reflects the losers typical campaign demand; debates!  Chris is in the same position, his point of view is being rejected and somehow Chris finds points of logic that inform him the debate has not been fully engaged.  Chris, by the way, there is no way for you to have a “great debate” based on your ratings, just saying!  Now, instead of anticipating reasonable debate at Hardball which I seem to remember from the past, I tune in for a dose of mainstream Progressive thinking.  Perpetual fodder for unknown bloggers; although, Ed is even better than you for that, just saying! (as an unknown blogger!)

Assuming Republican/Conservative success on November 2nd;  a bit of advice for Republican power brokers. Forget the seniority trap and put some of the “young guns” where they belong; Committee Chairmanships whip positions, issue leadership and primary spokespersons for a conservative agenda.  If the old white guy formula prevails there will be problems in 2012.  You’ve seen and have benefited from the  power of “pissed off”; even if you don’t fully deserve it.  If you’re serious about maintaining momentum the only concern Messrs. Boehner and McConnell should have is; “best man or woman for the job”!   It’s not “Conservative” to waste or repress resources and potential, human or otherwise.  Got it?  

The Department of Health and Human Services has just issued 1,700 pages of regulations associated with Obama Care.  Wait, wait there are another 2,500 pages coming to a bureaucracy near you for a near term total of 4.200.  But….wait, wait the estimate of what the full throated regulatory environment will be is …………100,000 pages of regulations and “guidance”.  Lawyers are already dancing on our graves.  And, by the way, this program and the regulatory “guidance” will motivate employers to abandon company sponsored health care in favor of paying the penalties.  Expert analysis estimates 10% to 12% in increased costs yearly for as far as the eye can see.

How did this election become so much about Sarah Palin?  Fear, or is this the only available tactic for Democrats desiring to nationalize an election around Palin that has already been nationalized by the President’s policies?  “Is she qualified to be President?’ is the litmus test question for Republican candidates, it so prevalent, it should send the media conspiracy crowd into a thither.  The Republican answer should be simple; “she’s as qualified as a first term Senator would be!

  • JD

    On the issue of legalizing of cannibus, there is going to have to be federal law to protect legalization of drugs. The truth is drugs and alcohol are considered federal issues. California can make a statement to start the national conversation about the legalization but, again, it is a federal issue when it comes to drugs and alcohol.

    Never the less, I think it should be legalized nationally and I think it will be in the 15 years.

  • Landreaux

    Funny thing, it’s those crazy Libertarians who think current drug policy is much more of a negative than a positive. It’s clear the “war on drugs” has done essentially nothing, despite ever expanding budgets. Enforcement is a local perogative, regardless of the law and the criminal empire behind drugs it a major issue.

    So is domestic demand but current policy has not done anything about that so logic demands we look at “big picture” alternatives.

    Perhaps phased de-criminalization is an answer but do you not agree two diametrically opposed political orientations must utilize common ground in support of their arguments?

  • JD

    Well, those crazy libertarians are correct. However, there does need to be a line drawn somewhere and fortunately as a culture we have been around drugs long enough now to know which ones need to be illegal and which ones don’t. 60 years ago when everything was being introduced and no understanding was there, I could understand the approach. But A pot head in prison next to a serial killer doesn’t really make sense and just cost us more money in the long run because there will always be more pot heads than serial killers.

    I definitely think there has to be common ground arguments, however, I think the real issue is realizing it starts with National Policy and there will not be State to State unity. Although California and other states are ready to adopt new laws on drugs other states stand on the complete other end.

    States and people would need to realize that just because it is legalized nationally, it doesn’t mean it will be legal sell where they live. Perfect example is Alcohol and dry counties though out America. Legalizing anything on the national level really puts control into local economies and legislation. This is seen best with the use of Tabacco. Because it isn’t illegal on the national level, it can be controlled on the local level and there can be laws that ban usage in buildings, in public, and so on…

  • Landreaux

    This is good we agree more than we disagree, maybe we’re the vanguard!!!!!

    The Libertarian argument,when you look closely and objectively does have a lot to recommend it although I agree there have to be limits. Pot heads in jail make no sense at all, again we agree.

    Where we may disagree is one step back from your point about national policy. I would argue that if there is to be some points of common ground it has to start with basic agreements as to what the Constitution represents as the basis for that National Policy.

    The whole basis of Federalism grows out of the idea that when state’s rights prevail government is ever closer to the voters, it also rests on the idea that the right answer for Massachusetts may not be the right answer for Texas and that those citizens have control over what is closest to them.

  • JD

    Indeed, it is where we move apart. I do see this issue on the side of Federal first because through our federal government our states derive their rights and I don’t mean that our federal government feeds states it’s scraps. I.E. the constitution is a national document from which states gain or lose their rights.

    As of now, Drug Laws stem from the top down because it is illegal federally step one would be legalizing it from the halls of the US congress. From there it would allow local government to do with it as they wish. I think the biggest argument for this is the simple issue of the amount of interstate commerce that would start the day after it were made legal.

    I guess, I don’t see this as a conflict with the constitution. The truth is Alcohol was abolished and reinstated though the constitution.

  • Landreaux


    You are correct the Commerce Clause and it’s evolving application is the touchstone of the problem, as applied. The original intent was to keep the 13 colonies from waging economic war on each other. We’ve traveled a long, long, way from that original intent.