GOP Senators discover states’ rights when convenient

From the Hill

The Senate narrowly defeated an amendment on Thursday that would have established a commission to research avenues for reparing the “broken” criminal justice system after Republicans said it would encroach on states’ constitutional rights to conduct their own affairs.

Yep, this is the Webb commission that got defeated.

Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R) echoed Coburn, calling the proposed body a vast violation of states’ rights.

“This is the most massive encroachment on states’ rights I have ever seen in this body,” she said.

Kay Hutchison apparently has never heard of marijuana.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to GOP Senators discover states’ rights when convenient

  1. Chris says:

    This is how Webb’s proposal got shot down? That’s extremely disappointing.

    Obama Must Explain His Broken Promise on Medical Marijuana, and Soon

  2. Francis says:

    I have absolutely no respect for fair-weather federalists. I’m no fan of Obamacare, but sometimes I hope that the individual mandate is upheld – and Raich is used as the key precedent.

    • darkcycle says:

      Well, it is a serve-all.

    • I understand your frustrations – but we do not want government deciding what we must buy and penalizing us when we don’t. Two wrongs never make a right.

      • Duncan20903 says:

        So when can I cancel my car insurance Daniel?

        I’d like to quit paying the county for trash pickup. It’s almost $500 a year and I’m certain I wouldn’t pay that much in fines for illegal dumping.

        The wife and I purposefully chose to have no children, but the rat bastards still make us pay school taxes.

        I’m forced to buy a retirement plan and medical care for senior citizens. The former regardless of our total 401K/Roth IRA balances, my wife’s being vested in her defined benefits plan, the fact that her employer pays for health care insurance subsequent to her retirement, or our total net worth. Our health insurance cost right now is just under $15,000 a year.

        Recently I looked at a rather nice commercial property. It was being sold because the EPA drove the previous owner into bankruptcy after declaring it a toxic waste dump and forcing him to buy services to clean up.

        The above is by no means a comprehensive list of stuff I’m forced to buy from the government. Would it make you feel better if we went single payer and a “take it or leave it” choice when it comes to health care services? Would you then be operating under the impression that it’s free when the cost is an increased income tax payment? It seems to me the main objection to universal health care among American voters is losing their freedom of choice in health care decisions.

        But don’t worry too much. I have a hard time thinking that a country who’s people can’t even trade up to the metric system because counting by 10s is so difficult to master will be able to effectively change the fundamental dynamics of our system of health care delivery. We’ll just keep paying through the nose for assigning ERs as the PCP of the poor. We’ll also continue to pay through the nose because poor people develop serious medical conditions that could have been easily fixed with a few pills and an injection of antibiotics.

        If you recall, Bob Marley died from cancer of the big toe. His cancer was almost certainly curable. Heck, a pair of bolt cutters would have done the trick. The cancer was diagnosed very early and was limited to his big toe. Yes, yes, I realize that Mr. Marley wasn’t part of our health care system and that he died because Rastafarian dogma forbids that religion’s adherents from cutting anything off of the body (that’s why they do the dreadlocks thing). His terminal illness is presented as an illustration of just how significantly a minor, curable condition can escalate into significant health care costs.

        One of the reasons I’m against the single payer concept is because of the possibility of urine testing for substances on the naughty list with that resulting in limited to no benefits for those who test positive who refuse to enter “treatment” after testing positive. That is a significant possibility that I think that our cohort needs to be careful of discounting as a possibility.

  3. claygooding says:

    Kay Baily is a died in the wool prohibitionist,,receive 150k election funds from the pharmaceutical industry.

    She has heard of marijuana and if you write in asking for support of reform,she sends you a page right out of ONDCP handbook.

    • Bryan S. says:

      I know… right?

      I once took the time to reply back to her and a couple other Pols I had petitioned = mostly State & House Congressional Reps… And Sen. Kay Baily, IIRC – I didn’t even consider bothering e-mail Sen. Cornyn about it, I may have done that once a couple years ago (idk?)

      Anywho, It was mostly for ME – (maybe my peace of mind I guess).
      I’m not holding my breath for Texas to really get behind a “Don’t Mess With Texas” stance = when it comes to Federalism – you know the 9th & 10th Amendments…

      Nope, we reserve that slogan for fighting Littering on the highways (mostly), NOT for maintaining our personal Liberties.

      Oh, and people here have used it to fuel the urban myth that (via some secret-ish/unspecified treaty maybe?) that Texas managed to “maintain the Right to Succeed from the US”.

      I swear I remember hearing that in 7th grade Texas History. (But my teacher for that class was the Head Football Coach – [who only had to teach one class & not necessarily well] so, go figure *shrug*)

      As I recall it came from some claim based on our entering the US – as a former sovereign “Lonestar Republic” and whatnot, But this would require that we pretty much ignore the ‘larger events’ at the end of the Civil War.

      I know that this odd “incorrect perception” is also mistakenly based off of a somewhat unusual (and real – at least at one point) “Right to split into 5 states” (at a later date =IDK?)
      And let’s be fair:
      We know the U.S. didn’t exactly have a stellar reputation about holding up to the treaties it signed during those first 100-150 years or so…

      Still, we do have a rather independent streak in us – MAYBE – we’ll actually stand up for our (factual) “Rights” under the 9th & 10 Amendments to the Constitution?

      • Duncan20903 says:

        My 11th grade history teacher told us that in order to be elected POTUS that the candidate had to be a natural born citizen, at least 35 years of age and be white, male, and a have full head of hair.

        She was also the first person who I heard say that the US is a free country as long as you do what you’re told to do. No fooling, she really believed that her line of nonsense was accurate. She did acknowledge that the white, male, full head of hair assertions were de facto requirements “written between the lines” in the US Constitution.

  4. tensity1 says:

    Fucking republicans and filibusters blocking everything. I’d like to kick ’em in the nards–well, I’d like to kick all politicians in their eunuch spots (no ‘nads to speak of concerning pot prohibition, anyway; only balls enough to sell us out to the highest bidder), but I’d give the R’s an extra kick or two for good measure.

    State’s rights. What bullshit hypocrisy.

  5. kaptinemo says:

    Isn’t it interesting how The Beast doesn’t want to know what’s in its’ own intestines?

    The Webb Committee would have proved to be the biggest damnation of our drug-prohibition-fueled ‘Justice’ system ever. No doubt of it. And the scrutiny applied to those who benefit from the system would have caused mass public revulsion, especially in these very hard fiscal times. Particularly the part about inmates forced to work for pennies on the dollar in jobs that people on the outside could do…for a decent wage. That kind of ‘competition’ doesn’t sit well with economically depressed communities.

    The Webb Committee would have been like the Church Committee before it, revealing all manner of atrocities that certain people in power don’t want to ever see the light of day. It would have provoked undeniable and unremitting calls for reform that no pol could afford to ignore. Very expensive reforms, fiscally and politically.

    ‘State’s Rights’? Don’t make me laugh. The opponents of this Committee knew that it was a weapon aimed right at them and their sleazy support of drug prohibition for self-serving purposes. They dodged the bullet this time, but the next one may be an economic collapse, brought about in no small part thanks to the profligate spending Uncle’s engaged in (to the tune of a trillion, give or take a few billion) with this idiotic drug prohibition. And then there won’t be any money for anything…and we’ll all fervently wish it hadn’t been p*ssed away by the prohibs in chasing ‘pot-heads’ and locking up minorities.

  6. Steve Clay says:

    In short, this is bullshit.

  7. Raise your hand if you’re surprised.

  8. Servetus says:

    Future commentators will say that had the Webb commission gone forward with its hearings, the national revolution that followed the Senate’s defeat of the amendment would have never occurred.

  9. JDV says:

    Let’s be fair. The constitution disappears when the Democrats find it convenient, too. Lots of liberal programs are based on Congress’s ability to regulate interstate commerce which today basically means any activity that can be construed as economic.

Comments are closed.