The "States' Rights Party" Has a Serious States' Rights Problem

image
Published: 24 Feb, 2017
3 min read

The issue of civil liberties versus states' rights has entered the forefront of the national political discussion as the White House made two announcements this week: (1) It's a states' rights issue to decide bathroom policy for transgender people, and (2) there will likely be an increase in enforcement of federal marijuana prohibition in states that have legalized it for recreational use.

Source: Reuters


Source: Washington Post


Source: NPR


Source: Market Watch


Here is what White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said on both issues.

On the federal guidance to transgender policy:

"The reality is when you look at Title IX, it was enacted in 1972. The idea that this was even contemplated ... is preposterous on its face... He (President Trump) just believes this is a state issue that needs to be addressed by states, as he does with a lot of issues that we have talked about... We are a states' rights party. The president on a lot of issues believes in these various issues being states' rights. I don't see why this would be any different."

Except, that is not completely the case with marijuana and cannabis policy:

“I do believe that you’ll see greater enforcement of . There’s two distinct issues here: medical marijuana and recreational marijuana. I think when you see something like the opioid addiction crisis blossoming in so many states around this country, the last thing we should be doing is encouraging people."

This, of course, raises the question: how similar are the issues of the opioid addiction crisis and recreational marijuana? And, are medical and recreational marijuana really night and day issues?

IVP Donate

The Marijuana Policy Project responded:

"The vast majority of Americans agree that the federal government has no business interfering in state marijuana laws. This administration is claiming that it values states’ rights, so we hope they will respect the rights of states to determine their own marijuana policies. It is hard to imagine why anyone would want marijuana to be produced and sold by cartels and criminals rather than tightly regulated, taxpaying businesses. Mr. Spicer says there is a difference between medical and recreational marijuana, but the benefits of and need for regulation apply equally to both."

https://twitter.com/MarijuanaPolicy/status/834889336495751172

The debate over states' rights versus civil liberties and the authority of the federal government has dominated topics from transgender protections to drug policy to immigration enforcement.

During the final DNC chair debate Wednesday night, for example, many of the candidates made the case for states' rights when it comes to state and local governments deciding how law enforcement resources are allocated to protect their communities -- defending states and cities that have given themselves sanctuary status for undocumented immigrants.

Some of the DNC candidates remarked on the irony that the "states' rights party" -- in the words of Sean Spicer -- would not stand up for local control over how states, counties, and cities choose to protect people within their respective jurisdictions. However, the fact that Democratic leaders and officials are making the case for more local control on this one issue cannot escape those who look for the irony in partisan politics either.

States' rights versus civil liberties is a nuanced debate that has existed since the founding of the republic. What issues are up to the purview of individual states and what issues fall under the jurisdiction of much broader federal protections and enforcement? Is marijuana policy a matter for the states or should the federal government step up enforcement to protect federal prohibition? Can a transgender boy or girl be denied protections in one state that they were granted in another? And, do Title IX protections really hinge on a discussion with parents, teachers, state lawmakers, etc?

The Internet, as expected, has a lot to say:

Let Us Vote : Sign Now!

https://twitter.com/ChadHGriffin/status/834473745939062787

https://twitter.com/GodlessNZ/status/835106266364010496

https://twitter.com/colbertlateshow/status/834987062906363904

https://twitter.com/pastormarkburns/status/834859028790534146

https://twitter.com/PaulBlu/status/834861761748688896

What do you think?

Photo Credit: J. Bicking / shutterstock.com

You Might Also Like

Ballrooms, Ballots, and a Three-Way Fight for New York
Ballrooms, Ballots, and a Three-Way Fight for New York
The latest Independent Voter Podcast episode takes listeners through the messy intersections of politics, reform, and public perception. Chad and Cara open with the irony of partisan outrage over trivial issues like a White House ballroom while overlooking the deeper dysfunctions in our democracy. From California to Maine, they unpack how the very words on a ballot can tilt entire elections and how both major parties manipulate language and process to maintain power....
30 Oct, 2025
-
1 min read
California Prop 50 gets an F
Princeton Gerrymandering Project Gives California Prop 50 an 'F'
The special election for California Prop 50 wraps up November 4 and recent polling shows the odds strongly favor its passage. The measure suspends the state’s independent congressional map for a legislative gerrymander that Princeton grades as one of the worst in the nation....
30 Oct, 2025
-
3 min read
bucking party on gerrymandering
5 Politicians Bucking Their Party on Gerrymandering
Across the country, both parties are weighing whether to redraw congressional maps ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. Texas, California, Missouri, North Carolina, Utah, Indiana, Colorado, Illinois, and Virginia are all in various stages of the action. Here are five politicians who have declined to support redistricting efforts promoted by their own parties....
31 Oct, 2025
-
4 min read