United States Attorney General Eric Holder recently announced that federal agents will now target marijuana distributors ONLY when they violate BOTH Federal and State laws. This is a departure from the policy of the Bush Administration. See “Pot advocates exhale after AG signals policy shift.”
According to Jody Armour, a law professor at the University of Southern California, Holder’s decision “signals…a true kind of federalism.” Armour explains, “The federal government is allowing states to take chances, to take experiments and see what happens.”
Mark Osler, a Baylor University law professor and fellow Baptist blogger (Osler’s Razor) has also weighed in on this bit of news. Here’s Osler:
“I recognize that medical marijuana in California is a barely-regulated mess– I’ve been to Venice Beach, after all. Still, I do think that the federalism principle does require some policy deference to the states, and I’m glad to see that the Obama administration is taking that seriously.”
The response from the usually small-government promoting, states’ rights corner of the Baptist world has not been quite as positive. Southern Baptist “ethics” leader Barrett Duke of the SBC’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission declared that the Obama administration’s “surrender to bad state policies on so-called medicinal marijuana will have disastrous effects.” Duke continued, “Medical marijuana is the Trojan horse of the marijuana decriminalization movement.”
Note that a total of 13 states in the U.S. have legalized the use of medical marijuana. They include: California, Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Medico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.
Over the past 30 years, the Southern Baptist Convention and its loud leaders have embraced a free-market fundamentalism that has advocated on behalf of an anthropocentric utilitarian ideology that is always willing to throw the poor under the bus in order to advance this economic priority or that economic priority. Most recently, we’ve seen this ideology in the resolutions passed by the Southern Baptist Convention on the subject of Climate Change. Environmental stewardship has taken a back-seat to the Free-Market faith of Southern Baptist fundamentalists.
As already noted, typically Southern Baptist leaders have been champions of a small federal government and states rights. Small government principles are usually at the heart of the philosophy embraced by Richard Land and his ERLC. Recently, those small government principles prevailed when Dick Land lobbied against the reauthorization of the government program known as State Children’s Health Insurance Program which is designed to provide uninsured children, many very poor, with health insurance.
Well-known Southern Baptists have been quick to drop the S-bomb (socialism) when referring to the campaign promises and policies of the Obama Administration. Al Mohler recently plugged an article which argued that the expansion of the federal government social service programs “contributes to the secularization of the society.” In other words, bigger government hurts churches and will cause a greater decline in organized Christianity.
For Mohler, Land, Baptist Press & Company, a small government political philosophy that defers to the rights of the states is THE biblical form of politics. So, it is somewhat unusual (thought not surprising) to see top Southern Baptist leaders come out against a return to federalism.
Apparently, Big Government principles suit Southern Baptists well when hot culture war issues are at stake.
I’ve been blogging about Sen. Jim Webb(D-VA)’s welcome push for criminal justice and prison reform. Today, I learned that he was open to the decriminalization of cannabis, though that is not his major focus.
Elsewhere, Obama replied at his online townhall that he does not think legalization of pot is a way to grow the economy–but didn’t say if he’d sign decriminalization for other means. (I happen to think that legalizing this multi-billion dollar illegal industry –and taxing it heavily–could help many state budgets, hurt the drug cartels, and save limited police resources for tackling hard drugs like meth, coke, etc. I say this as one who has never tried pot and has no plans to do so, legal or not.)
It’s interesting that federalism also goes out the window for Southern Baptists where same-sex marriage is concerned.
B’Diddy,
What an interesting concept. We are returning to a “federalist” position in our governing. I have never thought of it that way. Allow the states to make their own laws and if they violate a federal law then that is ok because it is the states responsibility to police their own residents.
I particularly am glad to see that you stand firmly behind the doctrine of states’ rights and the sovereignty of the individual states. You are beginning to sound as if you were in attendance on November 10, 1860 in the South Carolina Legislature. You do realize you are using the same argument for the legalization for pot that the south used to keep their slaves? Or was it to overcome the unfair advantage of the tariff act? You would do John C. Calhoun proud.
Blessings,
Tim
Actually, I don’t think Big Daddy was arguing for federalism himself (though there are versions that aren’t so extreme as to justify secession or cancel out federal laws). He was pointing out the hypocrisy of the SBC: They argue FOR federalism on tax issues, gun control, welfare, education, destroying the environment (er, ignoring federal ecology laws, I mean, resisting the federal overlords and their hippy bosses), etc. But here, when it comes to drug policy, they immediately want to throw out federalism.
(Of course, they also did this in backing Bush v. Gore which trashed the election laws of FL and the decisions of the FL Supreme CT in ’00 to argue that Bush would be irreparably harmed if all the votes were counted and we found out who really won. The decision threw out the federalist principles of all 5 justices who voted for it–and the SBC leaders cheered because it meant the “right” man was installed in place of the man who WON. Doubtless, the SBC is cheering for a federal court to override MN if the courts there decide the election recount in favor of Al Franken. No principles. ANYTHING if the “right” side wins.)
No one is a pure federalist; it’s not that simple. What if a state decided to euthanize all newborns below a certain birthweight?
In response to the comments on Bush v. Gore: seven of the nine justices decided that Florida’s electoral recount procedures, as applied, violated the equal protection clause of the U.S. consititution. The party-line disagreement centered on the remedy, with both majority and minority citing different irreparable harm to the respective parties and more importantly, to the nation. The remedy also had to comply with 3 U.S.C. Sec. 5, federal electoral law. The “most federalist” thing to do may have been to remand to the Florida Supreme Court for clarification and, if they so decided, instruction on standards for a full recount to be completed in less than a week (to meet the date by which the presidential electors convene).
Ironically, the rare cases in which the Supreme Court has declared federal law to violate the 10th Amendment (federalism) were provisions of handgun and environmental laws.
Marriage shows how federalism cuts both directions. Marriage is traditionally a state issue — reserved to the states. Federalism should allow states to add one man-one woman marriage amendments to their state constitutions… unless you think that violates the U.S. Constitution.
Then there’s the whole idea of good policy and bad policy. Outlaw transfats and legalize pot, etc.
I guess I disagree with almost everything in the post, including putting “ethics” in quotation marks. But to each his own.