Legal Prop
The California Proposition getting the most attention is 19, which in essence legalizes marijuana. The polls showed an early lead but support has been dropping since.
If it passes, that's when the fun will start. (Not the kind you're thinking of.) Attorney General Eric Holder has promised to ignore the will of California voters and vigorously enforce federal drug laws. Okay, he's a fed, I can see that.
But local official, LA County Sheriff Lee Baca, will do the same. You might think changing state laws would change how he operates, but as he puts it, "Proposition 19 is not going to pass, even if it passes.” Good to know.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:19 AM
6 Comments:
I nominate Sheriff Lee Baca as EMPEROR OF LOS ANGELES!
The Obama administration has to stay strong on enforcing Federal drug laws over the objections of states, if only to remain consistent with their intention to enforce HCR over similar state refusals to be forced to implement unfunded Federal mandates on this front.
Colorado will probably join a dozen or so other states by passing an-anti Obamacare state constitutional referendum next week.
Is consistency really an issue? How do they square it with failing to enforce immigration law, in fact, suing to ensure that no one enforces immigration law?
I don't think the Obama people are worried about consistency. Holder's statement is for two reasons. They want everyone to know they're the top guys on the block and will decide what's enforced and what isn't, not the states. Also, they don't want to appear soft on crime.
DG, do you have a good primer on how those referenda would (or anyway are intended to) work? It's an interesting federalism problem.
In fact, from what I know of the referenda opposing HCR, they simply bar the state from cooperating with the Fed. Gov't. I'm most familiar with Colorado's amendment, which states in pertinent part:
"prohibiting the state independently or at the instance of the United States from adopting or enforcing any statute, regulation, resolution, or policy that requires a person to participate in a public or private health insurance or coverage plan or that denies, restricts, or penalizes the right or ability of a person to make or receive direct payments for lawful health care services"
As anon points out above - it is an odd reversal from the Obama administration's position on immigration law, where they are suing to prevent a state (AZ) from enforcing Federal immigration law, or even state law that copies federal law w/r/t immigration.
With HCR, we know that Medicare and Medicade are largely adminsitered by State agencies. So, if Obamacare mandates people purchase insurance from state exchanges, what happens if the States refuse to establish the exchanges? Enforcement by the Feds would be pretty tough - how many new FBI agents would you need?
But clearly the main point in passing these measures is to send a message to D.C. Obamacare will be a giant mess if the states don't participate willingly, as they do with medicare and Medicaid.
Post a Comment
<< Home