So all of a sudden the will of the voters as expressed at the ballot box is sacred and must be respected
A Washington, D.C. voter-approved initiative to legalize marijuana goes into effect in 10 days. This new “law” is, of course, flatly illegal and contrary to federal law. With news coming out today that extra-strength pot is responsible for about one quarter of all new cases of psychosis, the federal law is pretty easy to defend.
But according to the Washington Post, come February 26, “Residents and visitors old enough to drink a beer will be able to possess enough pot to roll 100 joints. They will be able to carry it, share it, smoke it and grow it.”
Whether the federal law against pot is easy to defend or not, it’s the law. It’s federal law. It is the law of the land. And it’s an actual law, passed by Congress and signed into law by the president. It’s not just a court ruling, which of course is a ruling and not in fact law at all.
Now let’s remember that on the issue of marriage, liberals are constantly lecturing us about the supremacy clause, and about federal law trumping local law, and telling us we are benighted Neanderthals to even think that the citizens in the individual states should be allowed maximum latitude to govern themselves on matters of social importance.
But on pot, suddenly we are being lectured to by the same folks, who are now telling us that the will of the people is of paramount importance and must be respected, no matter what that pesky supremacy clause might have to say about it.
With regard to the D.C. pot initiative, the Post writes that “(Mayor Muriel) Bowser and D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson (D) said they would rather err on the side of supporting city voters.”
So all of a sudden the will of the voters as expressed at the ballot box is sacred and must be respected, regardless of what bureaucrats in the federal government are trying to tell us to do.
The battle in Alabama over marriage concerns an amendment to the Alabama constitution passed overwhelmingly by 81% of the voters that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. This amendment is perfectly constitutional, since the Constitution is silent on the subject of marriage and thus quite explicitly reserves this issue to the states.
In contrast, D.C.’s pot initiative is perfectly illegal since the District must operate under explicit federal law just like the rest of the nation.
D.C.’s pot initiative likewise was passed overwhelmingly, with 70% of the vote. So according to city leaders in our nation’s capitol, we can break the law if enough of our voters want us to. We can flat out ignore that business about federal supremacy, even though federal supremacy on the matter is unambiguous.
But on marriage, where there is no constitutional authority for federal supremacy at all, we’re being told that the federal government must land like a falling safe on any state which dares to exercise its constitutional right to self-governance.
Bottom line: for liberals, whether the vote of the people is sacred all depends upon whether we are talking about a psychosis-inducing drug or the foundational institution of all human civilization.