Posted by AuntieMel on February 22, 2005, at 10:37:02
In reply to Re: Board Quiet, posted by gromit on February 21, 2005, at 19:17:55
I'm with you on that one. But then, I always seem to be swimming upstream.
Drug laws and such were always considered to be the state's business. The fed was to limit itself to interstate affairs unless a state was being discriminitory in some unconstitutional manner.
If I remember right, this changed with Nixon. He got the first federal drug law passed because, in his paranoia(?) he believed that he was going to have trouble with the black population. [aside: this was around the time of some large race riots]
He also believed that blacks were more likely than whites to use drugs. So by making federal drug laws he had "cause" for more arrests.
It seems highly ironic that a republican would dismiss state's rights - until you consider some history:
For a large number of years, the republican party was more "liberal" than the democratic party. While Lincoln (republican) was fighting for emancipation the south, consisting of democrats, was fighting for state's rights.
The line began to blur around the time of FDR, when northern democrats began to be considered "liberal" but the southern democrats were the most "conservative" bunch in the country. George Wallace was a democrat after all.
Only with Reagan did the south become a republican majority.
By the way - those of us down here in oil country probably would have listened to Cal. more about Enron if we didn't believe Californians were always crying wolf.
poster:AuntieMel
thread:457443
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20050122/msgs/461733.html