WHY GAY MARRIAGE, VISITING CUBA, AND POT MAY SOON BE LEGAL

No coincidence. A deal was struck

The perception is that the failed invasion of Cuba showed Jack's weakness to Khrushchev. Hell the Russkies would have done the job and been home for lunch. So he figured they could do what they wanted and Jack would waffle. Didn't happen.

Califronia may be the sixth biggest economy in the world but it is also constantly on the verge of bankruptcy and absolutely depends on dollars from Washington just to keep its infrastructure going. Don't ask me to explain that. An economist I'm not. The way things have developed, no state can raise enough funds on its own these days to maintain certain basic services.

I think you're also under a misaprehension here. California as a state, i.e. the government of California, sends no money to Washington. Citizens of California, however, are also citizens of the USA and, as such, pay the same incometax and federal exise tax as rsidents of all other states. And businesses headquartered in California pay federal taxes like evryone else. They also pay taxes to the state of California. The fact that Cal. has the sixth largest economy in the world has no bearing on the amount of monmey that the state's government is able to collect from its citizens. And a state that large needs a hell of a lot of money just to supply such basic services to its citizens as police protection, education, transportation etc. etc.



Yes, the UK, like most (all?) European nations has a centralized form of government. The US has a federal system of government. In its original conception, don't forget, the states were envisioned as being independent countries (states). By joining into a federation of united states. they agreed to give up certain rights that independent countries usually have, e.g. the right to make foreign treaties, the right to have their own navies (although, of course, they maintained their own armies in the form of the militias) and several other rights that were claimed by the central gov ernment. The Constitution spells out quite clearly what the rights of the Federal government are and makes it point to add that all rights not so enumerated belong to the various separate states.

Well now. This notion of absolute states' rights was sorely tested during the American Civil War when some Southern states decided to simply secede from their membership in this federation. They, no doubt, thought they had the right to do so as the Constitution says nothing whatever about termination of state membership. The outcome of that war showed rather conclusively that states' rights are limited, that Federal law trumps state law every time.

What else do you need to know, Spendi?

I don't think you can say that states rights are limited on the basis of an outcome of a war unless you agree that might is right. Surely rights exist outside of such considerations. Are those southern states that lost the war something in the way of vassals?

If no state can raise enough funds on its own these days to maintain certain basic services then it follows, I think, that the funds to maintain the services comes from outside of the states or that the services are not maintained.

Are some states getting shafted or is it just us in the outlands?

One certainly can [and apparently has] if one slept through all one's history courses.

I don't think you should quote half sentences JT in cases like that.

We obviously need a meaning for the word "rights".

Well, you're looking in all the wrong places, Spendi.

Yes, you are, Spendi, if you pay the least attention to the likes of JTT. Try to just ignore him/her as I try to do. I know it's not always easy but the peace of mind is worth the effort.

Back to the subject. Perhaps I didn't make myself quite clear enough. No, I don't mean that the outcome of this so-called Civil War was what established the principle of Federal primacy. It merely redefined the relationship between the states and the central authority. Ever since 1865, the year that war ended, the Federal government has taken more and more responsibility for running just about everything. It's a hard concept for many Europeans to grasp, but there really are -- just as one example -- hundreds upon hundreds of separate police forces, for example, none answerable to any central authority or body for oversight. And the federal police agencies, e.g. the FBI or ATF have really extremely limited jurisdiction in any state. They can rspond to or investigate only cases which involve specific violations of Federal statutes, never state laws.

Do you mean that any state can legalise anything that doesn't contravene a Federal statute? That's amazing. Which state is the "blackest sheep" state?

After all, laws are to stop us doing what comes naturally. There's no point in laws to stop us doing what we don't want to do.

Does it get competitive? No wonder it is taking a long time to get a European constitution agreed.

Could smokers get a state of their own?

Well, the guiding principle, of course, is the Constitution. That is the highest law of the land. Neither any state nor the Federal government may enact any legislation which would contravene the principles espoused in the Constitution. So, can a state legalise anything that doesn't contravene a Federal statute, you ask. Actually, a state can even legalise stuff that does go against Federal statutes. Marijuana is a case in point. A number of states -- California and Hawaii chief among them -- have legalized marijuana for medical use, if prescribed by a certified medical doctor. If you're caught smoking in a joint and can whip out the prescription and show the arresting officer that your doctor says you have a condition which gives you every right to smoke, you're good to go. Unless. Unless the arresting officer is a Federal official, eg. an agent of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) or an FBI agent or similar. Because, you see, regardles of what the state law says, marijuana is still illegal at the national (Federal) level.

Now, the reality of the situation is that this doesn't seem to happen much. The Federal anti-drug people aren't after the casual user. They go after the importers, suppliers and dealers of narcotics, not the guy or gal who's enjoying a joint because there is no state law against it.





I'm not sure I know what you mean by that. If you mean, do states compete to see which one can tug at Uncle Sam's little chin-whiskers the hardest, the answer is no. What the specific laws in a given state are usually is an accurate reflection of the voting population of that state. That pot is legal in California (more or less) comes as no surprise to those who know Californians.

I presume Andy that what JTT meant by this--



is that it is a waste of time asking you about these matters.

with confusion of this nature--



JTT might have a point. The might, displayed in victory, did both because they mean the same thing surely?

Merry Andrew wrote: " ... that Federal law trumps state law every time."

You not going to be "able to know" much by listening to a individual this confused, Spendi. But if a grade 2 civics course, with much of it nonsense, is what you desire, have at 'er.

What I had in mind was a post on the Prop 8 thread a while ago where one of the contributors referred to a state which was friendly to homosexuals was experiencing an influx of them and it was putting up property prices and, it was claimed, enhancing the general tone in a "modish" sense. Doesn't Nevada owe its making the desert bloom to it having made gambling respectable when it was frowned upon in other states.

Something else I'm a bit perplexed with is that if a federal agent arrested someone in California for possessing dope in quantities which didn't infringe Californian practice couldn't the arrested person appeal to the local police for protection? Does a federal agent have to accept the medical certificate, which we know is available on request when doctors charge patients for their services?

If one stood inside California to inhale and then stepped over the state line to act daft what would be the position? It is the acting daft which is the source of any illegality rather than the inhaling--I think.