Should the federal government be allowed to overturn state government propositions?

Question

There are some controversial propositions out. For example, some states are criminilizing elective abortion and some states are legalizing medical marijuana. The federal government wants to overturn medical marijuana propositions but hasn't approached the abortion issue. Is it the right of the federal government to overturn state laws that are passed by the majority vote of the people of that state?

Not looking for a break-down in how our government works. More interested in your opinion on modern day federalism and how the government is interpreting it.

Answer 1

I wish we could consult the Constitution itself to answer this question, but the respective powers of the federal government and the state governments has been extremely blurry during the 20th century. The definitions of the federal government's powers have been confused by much talk about "implied powers" while the definitions of what states are not allowed to do has become confused because of 1) the amibiguity of the 14th amendment and 2) the persistent misinterpretations of that amendment when the Supreme Court enforces "unenumerated rights" against the states and expands the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause beyond the one and only known purpose of that Clause.

Ostensibly, the way to distinguish between federal powers and state powers is this:
The Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the Constitution makes the federal government's powers supreme over that of the states, BUT ONLY WHEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS EXERCISING IT'S DELEGATED POWERS. Any powers that the federal government is attempting to exercise but which it was not delegated is supposed to be void and enforceable (unconstitutional).
Powers which the Constitution does not PROHIBIT the states to exercise, may be exercised by the states. Prohibited powers include those in which the state interferes with the federal government's power -- it's constitutionally authorized power.
To paraphrase Justice Clarence Thomas (dissenting opinion, U.S. Term Limits vs. Thornton) any subject about which the Constitution is silent, the federal government lacks the power to regulate it and the states enjoy it.

For cliffpotts to talk about the federal government being able to involved itself in anything the states are doing because of the 14th amendment is funny. Tragically funny.

Answer 2

The Federal government can regulate anything that involves interactions between States and anything that crosses State boundaries. Many of the propositions do affect more than the State that the law might be created in. As well, a State can not create a law that goes against laws that are already in affect Nationally. Some issues did not exist 50 years ago let alone 100 years ago. Therefore not only are States dealing with these issues, but also the Federal Government. When this happens not only do State laws have to be looked at and at times modified to reflect the wishes of the residents of that State, but Federal laws have to be looked at and how changes in State law may or may not affect Federal law. Changing Federal laws is a much bigger hornets nest than changing State laws, because all States are then involved. So, is it the right of the Federal gov't to overturn State laws that are passed by the majority vote of the people of that State? Yes... Some... Not all laws a State passes will affect the surrounding States or Federal laws that are already in affect.

Answer 3

Excellent question. That's what federalism is all about - the division of power between the states and the federal government.

The Supreme Court has ruled in both cases you mentioned, but if it's opinion you want, here's mine:

I say no on both counts. The powers of Congress are specifically enumerated in Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution, and it takes a significant warping of the words there to allow Congress to criminalize medical marijuana. As for abortion, the Court found the right to have it somewhere among the various amendments in the Bill of Rights. The amendment that SHOULD be applied is the Tenth, which reads as follows:

"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."

Answer 4

Not unless they infringe on the rights of its citizens or that state does not have the right to make the law in the first place, ie, interstate tariffs or something of that matter, or, let say California wanted to open a political discussion with Mexico over illegal immigration. This would not be allowed because only countrys can speak for themselves in the international scene. On either of your two issues, the states hold final verdict. Know that neither of these issues will be solved anytime soon, seeing as the supreme court refuses to rule on either of them. I will tell you that most forms of illegal drugs were put there at the federal level, and that it probably should be challenged by some states rightest group to get it overturned. When it comes down to it, though, the federal government will have its way the same way it did with drinking ages. If a state refuses to obey, the federal government will withhold funding for some vital project and more of our freedoms will be wisked away by those who say they want to protect us from ourselves....

Answer 5

Yes. The USA fought a Civil War over this issue in the 1860's... State's Rights. The Federal Government has the final say, if it chooses, in all matters. It is also my opinion that this is the way it should remain...

Answer 6

Under the guidelines of the 14th Amendment, the federal government can become involved in the states business.

Answer 7

If the federal government has jurisdiction, based on the Constitution, then yes it can.

If the federal government doesn't have jurisdiction, based on the Constitution, then no it shouldn't. But that doesn't mean that the Federal Courts couldn't 'discover' something the the 'auras and penumbras' of the constitution.

Answer 8

what do think the Supreme court does .
BTW I suggest you read Rowe vs Wade the Supreme court decided that abortion was legal under the 14th Amendment .
So saying the federal government hasn't approached the abortion issue is dead wrong ,

Answer 9

yes

Answer 10

ON THE STATE & LOCAL THE FED IS THIER DADDY