Posted on by Californiacontrarian

The Pot Calling the Kettle . . .

Indulge me for just a minute or two while I present a political dilemma. I am going to make a few assumptions, but the facts will be the actual facts.

The dilemma:

When the people of a state elect a governor, and that governor has strong views on subject X,  I think that it is fair to say that a lot of the the people of that state are in agreement with their elected governor’s viewpoint on X. If that governor was elected by a sizable margin, it is probably reasonable to assume that, in fact, the majority of the people in that state are in agreement with the governor on the subject of X.

In the U.S.A. even though a single state is but a small portion of the total entity of the country, shouldn’t the people of that state have some control over the laws that they have to follow? If the people of that state have a strong difference of opinion with the Federal Government on a certain issue, do they have to go along with the Feds? Should they be bound by the same laws as the rest of the country in circumstances where the political leaning of that state is contrary to the political leanings of much of the rest of the country? Should the Federal Government of political party A have the power to strong arm the state whose views are those of political party B? If  the people of a state strongly believe in X, and that state has a law on the books that say that X is okay, shouldn’t the Federal Government just mind its own business? Wouldn’t it be best for the Federal Government to ignore the political difference of opinion with the state over X, and just let the people of that state handle the situation as they best see fit? Wouldn’t the prudent course of action by the Feds be to ignore the federal law in question, and just let the governor  of that state, elected by the people,  do whatever he thinks is best as far as X is concerned?

The potential solution:

Despite your political leanings to either the right or the left, I think that I have presented a cogent argument that the Feds should just butt-out! Leave the state in question alone. Let them follow their own laws and state constitution. To the Feds I say, “Mind your own business! Leave well enough alone!”

The facts and the outcome:

Of course the situation that I am talking about is what happened in 1963 in Alabama. George Wallace, the governor of Alabama, was a strong segregationist, and in fact ran and was elected on that platform. He ordered state troops to block the doors of schools in Alabama in order to prevent “blacks” from entering “white” schools. The problem was that the Federal laws on the books prohibited segregation in schools (Brown vs. Board of Education). The Federal Government (President Kennedy) federalized the National Guard and they moved in to insure that the Federal law was obeyed.  The rest is history, and despite your political leanings to either the right or to the left, I would surmise that all would agree that JFK made the right choice in enforcing Federal law.

The final question:

Does Federal law still have priority over State law or should states be able to choose to follow only the laws that they like? Is this still a dilemma? Would the Ninth Circuit Court of today have sided with the state or with President Kennedy? We may soon find out.

 

120 Replies to “The Pot Calling the Kettle . . .”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.