Keeping the Republic. Christine Barbour

Чтение книги онлайн.

      Weedy Territory Laws regarding marijuana have changed in several states (including Colorado, where this image was taken), but cannabis consumption remains illegal in many other states, and marijuana use is still a federal offense. The resulting patchwork of state laws and changing federal enforcement from one administration to the next make for a confusing pot market.

      Vince Chandler/The Denver Post/Getty Images

      Idaho law provides for imprisonment and a $1,000 fine for under three ounces of pot and up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine for more than three ounces. “Come on vacation, leave on probation,” says a Coeur d’Alene, Idaho lawyer.¹

      Or consider the case of the five brothers in Colorado who sold an oil made from a strain of marijuana that doesn’t even get you high. The plant is rich in a substance, CBD, that is used to treat seizures. It’s legal in Colorado, of course, but there is a global demand for the oil, and the brothers want to expand to meet that demand.² The fly in their ointment is that, even though the oil is not an intoxicant, it is made from marijuana and marijuana is illegal under federal law. So the brothers got their product classified as “industrial hemp,” which is okay by Colorado, but not necessarily by the United States, although it will be if Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell manages to get the Hemp Farming Act of 2018 passed.³

      Generally, federal law trumps state law when there is a conflict. The Obama administration, however, followed a policy under which the federal government wouldn’t prosecute for marijuana use in the states where it was legal, as long as the sale of marijuana was regulated.⁴ Try to sell that marijuana, however, or any product made from it, across state lines and the feds would seize it and possibly put the seller in jail. That policy stayed in place until January 2018, when the Trump administration’s attorney general, Jeff Sessions, rescinded it. Colorado senator Cory Gardner took the issue straight to Trump, who assured him Colorado’s pot smokers were safe from federal action. Trump has stood by that position, although his Department of Justice, led by Sessions, has not. Now that he has fired Sessions that may change, although Sessions had White House allies determined to enforce the federal law. ⁵

      Finally, consider the case of a Minnesota mom who was arrested in 2014 for giving her fifteen-year-old son marijuana oil on a doctor’s advice to relieve chronic pain and muscle spasms from a brain injury. The pot was purchased legally in Colorado but administered in Minnesota, which had passed a law allowing medical marijuana. The catch? It didn’t come into effect until July 2015. Said Bob Capecchi, who works for the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington, D.C., “Stunned was my initial reaction. I can’t think of an instance where an individual has been brought up on charges like this simply because the effective date hasn’t come around yet for the law that has already been passed. Let’s not forget, there is a medical marijuana law that has been endorsed by the legislature and by the Governor.”⁶

      Why is there so much legal turmoil surrounding the use of marijuana, something that a majority of Americans now think should be legal?⁷ Why can an activity that is legal in one state get you fined and thrown in jail in another? Why can the federal government forbid an activity but turn a blind eye to it unless you carry it across state lines? How do the laws get so complicated and tangled that you can get yourself arrested in one state for an activity that is legal in the state where you engaged in it, even if it is soon to be legal in the place where you are arrested? What is at stake when states decide to pass their own laws legalizing marijuana? We will return to this question at the end of the chapter, when we have a better grasp of the complex relationships generated by American federalism.

      THE Federalists and the Anti-Federalists fought intensely over the balance between national and state powers in our federal system. Debates over the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution show that the founders were well aware that the rules dividing power between the states and the federal government were crucial to determining who would be the winners and the losers in the new country. Where decisions are made—in Washington, D.C., or in the state capitals—would make a big difference in “who gets what, and how.” Today the same battles are being fought between defenders of state and national powers. The balance of power has swung back and forth several times since the founders came to their own hard-won compromise, but over the past quarter-century there has been a movement, led largely by Republicans, to give more power and responsibility back to the state governments, a process known as devolution.

      devolution the transfer of powers and responsibilities from the federal government to the states

      More recently, however, as Republicans became more accustomed to holding the reins of power in Washington with their various congressional majorities and their hold on the presidency from 2000 to 2008, their zeal for returning responsibilities to the states became less urgent, slowing the devolutionary trend. Calls for increased national security in the days after September 11, 2001, have also helped reverse the transfer of power to the states. As the state-federal relationship changes, so too do the arenas in which citizens and their leaders make the decisions that become government policy. Fundamental shifts usually mean changes in the probable winners and losers of American politics.

      In this chapter we examine the remarkable power-sharing arrangement that is federalism, exploring its challenges, both historical and contemporary. We look at the definition of federalism and the alternatives the founders rejected when they made this compromise, how the balance of power in American federalism has shifted over time, and the structure of federalism today and the ways the national government tries to secure state cooperation.

      What Is Federalism?: Balancing power between national and state governments

      Federalism is a political system in which authority is divided between different levels of government (the national and state levels, in America’s case). Each level has some power independent of the other levels so that no level is entirely dependent on another for its existence. In the United States, federalism was a significant compromise between those who wanted stronger state governments and those who preferred a stronger national government.

      federalism a political system in which power is divided between the central and regional units

      The effects of federalism are all around us. We pay income taxes to the national government, which parcels out the money to the states, under certain conditions, to be spent on programs such as welfare, highways, and education. In most states, local schools are funded by local property taxes and run by local school boards (local governments are created under the authority of the state), and state universities are supported by state taxes and influenced by the state legislature. Even so, both state and local governments are subject to national legislation, such as the requirement that schools be open to students of all races, and both can be affected by national decisions about funding various programs. Sometimes the lines СКАЧАТЬ