I have evinced skepticism about so-called federalist critiques of the federal governmentâ??s conduct in the drug war. My doubts notwithstanding,…

Since this was a federal indictment, the judge would not allow the defense to use anything relating to the medical necessity rule, being that the feds do not recognize the herb as a viable medication.

This is well documented on the web. Do a search at any of your favorite search engines.

A great quote on Federalism by Radley Balko of theagitator.com:…government works most efficiently when it’s most accountable to the people.

First, you fail to demonstrate that Ashcroft is a federalist in any way. You don’t cite a single federalist action or even vote. In the one interview you quote (just out of curiosity, did you read the whole thing, or just excerpts reported by other media?), he says “traditionalists”. You use “state’s rights” later (in quotes), but provide no context — did Ashcroft even use those words?. In fact, you provide a fairly clear picture of what segregation apologists in a general sense say, but are near silent about Ashcroft himself. If I’m reading something about Ashcroft, do me the favor of describing him, not some other group of which he may or not be a member (you say he isn’t a bigot, but do you include him as a segregationist apologist? If so, you provide no connection other than you talk about them an awful lot). Surely you can do better. Surely you didn’t use the Southern Partisan quote just to smear him as a possible bigot.

He may well be a federalist, but based on this article, that would be a leap of faith on the reader’s part. And while you provide your own definition, wouldn’t it have been helpful to provide Ashcroft’s definition? You accuse him of being a funky federalist, but provide no evidence that he’s even a federalist, let alone that his definition of federalism agrees with your own.

Second, you mischaracterize Richard Cohen (or if not Richard, then the Richard mischaracterized the truth): “Ashcroft has specifically charged U.S. Attorneys to aggressively seek the death penalty for capital federal crimes in areas of the country traditionally opposed to capital punishment. ” What I could find was that “In New York and Connecticut, two jurisdictions with an inexplicable reluctance to apply the death penalty — who can explain the effete East? — Ashcroft has ordered local prosecutors to seek the death penalty in cases where they had decided not to.” and that “Time magazine tells us that 12 times since assuming office, Ashcroft has overruled local U.S. attorneys and demanded they ask for capital punishment.” My understanding is that during the regular review of cases, Ashcroft has directed prosecutors to ask for the death penalty in cases where they hadn’t planned to — which isn’t what you said.

Third, I find that you are incorrect in your application of federalism. Perhaps your own views are coloring your application of federalism? But I digress. To me, federalism in this country means that constitution delineates the authority of the national (U.S., federal) government; the national government has only the authority granted it by the constitution, and no more. The states or the people retain all other authority; and local governments derive from the respective states. And where the national government has authority, it supercedes the states. So when Congress makes a law within its authority, that law takes precedence over state law(s). You have the crafting of laws correct (they should be pushed down to the lowest possible level), but the precedence backwards (higher level laws take precedence).

So how does this apply to the death penalty? Shouldn’t the justice department seek to carry it out uniformly? Yes. If there are differences between the states, then that is a matter for local juries, not the justice department. National policy should be uniform across the states (which is why its at the national level); state policy should vary from state to state.

On the matter of assisted suicide and drug laws, it’s fine and dandy for a state to make such things legal. But the voters of Oregon cannot overturn federal law. That would be a violation of federalism, not upholding it. If the voters in Oregon don’t want a state or local penalty for a particular act, then great, but they can’t change federal law all by themselves.

So on the matter of Ashcroft being a fairweather federalist, you provide no evidence whatsoever that he is a federalist, nor are the actions you cite incompatible with federalism.

Now this raises the point of whether or not these laws should be at a national level. I think most federalists would agree that the national government has usurped a lot of authority of the years it doesn’t legally possess. While I think the national government has gone overboard in federalizing crime, the case Cohen cited was that of spying, which IMHO is a national matter, not a state matter. Carjacking no, espionage yes. But I do think the drug laws and the prescription laws that are being used in the case of assisted suicide should be at the state level.

But here again you go overboard. The idea that Ashcroft is spending “considerably large swaths of DOJ time and resources to challenging state drug and assisted-suicide laws” is both unsupported and laughable, as is the further assertion that it’s detracting from the search for al-Qaeda. The idea that an organization as large as the justice department, and with the responsibility to enforce the national legal code, drop everything but the hunt for al-Qaeda is wrong, wrong, wrong, and flies in the face of the law of diminishing returns.

And yes, the Attorney Generals job is to uphold all the laws of the land — those he agrees with, and those he doesn’t. The best way, the only way to get a law declared unconstitutional is to prosecute somebody – courts can’t rule without a case before them. A senator’s job is to not only craft the legislation, but to worry whether or not the government has the authority to enact it.

Radley Balko points out that for John Ashcroft federalism can have many meanings (kind of a Straussian thing):Why was Senator Ashcroft so sympathetic to the â??statesâ?? rightsâ? cause when it came to issues like the Confederacy and segregation, but when it…

Modern day Federalism is selective because it no longer exists as a part of the checks and balances of our Constitutional structure. It is now a mere historical relic, brought out for display when it serves a specific purpose or agenda, and quickly put away when it impedes one’s agenda. This is why there is no consistancy to modern day “Federalism.”

As an example, Congress has passed a lot of laws tying Federal highway funds to the passage of certain state laws, such as speed limit and drunk driving laws. Under a true Federalist system, as existed prior to the 17th Amendment, the Senate, composed of appointees of State Legislatures, would refuse to pass such a bill. The modern-day Senate, facing re-election by the exact same electorate as the House, is barely distinguishable from the House. It is certainly not a State Legislature’s check on the Federal government.

I doubt that we would have the ever-expanding Federal drug laws without the 17th Amendment. As we are seeing in California, the State Legislatures have a genuine and compelling interest in tailoring drug laws to local circumstances, but they are hamstrung by the fact that, lacking their Constitutionally intended role in Congress, their ability to evolve drug laws comes only at the pleasure and whim of the Presidential Administration, which currently has no interest in allowing them to do so.

- The founding of the country and the related compromises made between the (almost) free and slave states.

- Pre and post Civil War

- 1955 – 1970 or so

Then you’d be very aware how federalism could be linked with racism, and why the Constitution was not sufficient.

Radley has posted a column that was rejected at Fox News about Ashcroft. Why was Senator Ashcroft so sympathetic to the ?states? rights? cause when it came to issues like the Confederacy and segregation, but when it comes whether or…

At the risk of sounding like Radley Balko’s ideological man-bitch, I’ll point you to his lost column today. Pay close attention to his justification for federalism and localized government, about a third of the way through. And then nod sagely…

On the one hand we have a constitution that is an extraordinary
assertion of the rights of individuals and of limitation of
power of the state. By any sensible logic all this rhetoric and
internally consistent logic would seem to apply to all people, but
slaves are more or less explicitly and legalistically denied
that human status, with no attempt being made to justify the
exception.

In my opinion the Constitution was an assault on slavery — and an
effective assault at that — but it’s an assault that’s complicated
enough that people have to think about it to get it and if they
don’t think about it, but are ‘surrounded’ by it, they absorb the
spirit of the document which means they absorb a logic implying
slavery is evil — which was of course a revolutionary message
in a world where slavery was the norm most places.

I’ve got one (probably stupid) question.

Several times I’ve heard about how the jury didn’t know Mr. Rosenthal was growing for the city of Oakland, why didn’t defense attorneys bring that up? Would the judge not allow them to?

thanks in advance

It’s not just John Ashcroft; it’s also driven by legislators who Must Do Something (since law enforcement falls outside of their job duties, that Something must include passing quick, poorly written new laws) and prosecutors hungry for “performance metrics” (convictions) who have growing discretion in the number of crimes and venues in which to try a single criminal offense.