The End of States Rights

[bmolsson]

Well, US could have a referendum on the constitution......

[Pindar]

Well, US could have a referendum on the constitution......

Actually it's called a Constitutional Convention and yes, it is legally possible.

[bmolsson]

Actually it's called a Constitutional Convention and yes, it is legally possible.

If so, it would be in order to check how large the French and Dutch part of the population is before going for it.......

[Kanamori]

"I DO care if we fund and hold elections to vote on propositions, make those propositions law (in our jurisdiction) only to be told that some higher power trumps that decision of the people. Makes a mockery of that process."

So, if some district creates a law that sends Jews to the crematories, then the national government is not in its place to stop that from happening to its citizens?

The problem is not that the Federal government is enforcing its laws, but the problem is that its laws are getting too limiting or taking too much power, in this case, and I feel that some portions of the CSA are unconstitutional. The Constitution sets a good basis on how limiting Federal can be, and that the laws should get more and more specific or menial, I cannot think of a better way to describe it, as they get closer and closer to the local level. The FDA is clearly regulating interstate commerce, whereas, I am not so sure the ladies using the marijuana were sending their goods anywhere else, or that the laws in California were in argument w/ any constitutional portion of CSA.

[Aurelian]

Okay, first things first: I support the idea that states should be able to pass medical marijuana laws, and that citizens should be able to treat themselves with prescription marijuana. Therefore, I want the same outcome as the people here who were upset with this decision.

From the article, it appears that the individual justices were also generally sympathetic to the plaintiffs.

HOWEVER, the Supreme Court's role is merely to interpret the law with respect to the Constitution and previous rulings. They have done so in this case, because the Federal government has long since had control through the interstate commerce clause over food and drug issues. The Court was merely making a decision based on current laws and the history of their interpretation.

The place to direct your attention, if you really want to see medical marijuana made legal is simple: the Congress and Executive branches. It's the laws of Congress and their enforcement by the Executive that are the real problem here. If Congress changes the drug laws so that exemptions are made for state medical marijuana, then there will be no more problem.

This is really more of a political problem than a legal one. The Court probably made the right decision on the basis of current Constitutional interpretations... even if we don't morally agree with the effect that that decision will have on the public.

At the moment, the only real way to solve this issue would be to get a consensus within the Republican party that the drug laws need to be changed. Call or write your legislators.

Of course, it probably won't do any good because politicians like to be seen as being 'tough' on drugs; but it certainly can't hurt to try. If Dobson, Limbaugh, and FOX NEWS took this up as an issue I'm sure they could get it passed. Compassionate conservatism and all.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

If Dobson, Limbaugh, and FOX NEWS took this up as an issue I'm sure they could get it passed. Compassionate conservatism and all.

They already have.



More Evidence of Out of Control Judiciary

[ichi]

The problem isn't the Supreme Court - they ruled based on existing case law and a reasonable interpretation of the Commerce Clause

The problem is (IMHO) with the Federal laws prohibiting marijuana. They are not effective, fair, nor a legitimate use of government power. They also have the unintended consequences of propping up organized crime and delegitimizing other laws.

Millions of Americans are high right now (hey, that could be a Frontroom thread What are you smoking now, Yes, Right Now!

We allow people to smoke and chew tobacco, which in the common forms is deadly. A man can drink his liver into toxic shock, as long as he is inside his house. We can ingest Prozac and Percoset and whatever by prescription. Kids are so doped up legally today its sad.

In a land based on freedom we don't need a nanny state. Pot is illegal because the liquor industry hooked up with the righteous religious and the law and order types, in a fit of hysteria. The war on drugs will eventually turn out to be the war on personal liberty.

The illicit status makes criminals rich, and this subverts everything from law enforcement to how people view the law. Once a person smokes pot they realize that all of the dangers were hyped. This leads to a degradation of the credibility of other laws. Once you start buying grass from a criminal you are in the criminal world, ready to move to the next level of criminality.

I don't smoke pot. I'm tested routinely and am in a position where I need to be 100% unimpaired. But these anti-dope laws are just plain stoopid, and now peeps who benefit from medical treatment based on marijuana will suffer.

That's not right.

ichi

[Pindar]

Hi, I usually stick to the RTW forums, but thought I would weigh in on this VERY important issue.

MJ be damned, I could care less.

Hello, Divinus

You don't like Michael Jordan?

The greatest issue of the v. Raich case was indeed states rights.

With this finding, the supremacy clause and commerce clause jointly put an end to all State Power and Rights. Here is how:

Everything affects intrastate commerce as the Supreme Court now defines it.

Actually it doesn't. As found in the 1995: United States v. Lopez and upheld in 2000: United States v. Morrison. a Judicial test was implemented. Regardless, if you are really up in arms about this, the case that should really get your ire is the 1971 Perez v. United States. This is where intrastate transactions formally fell under Commerce Clause applicabiltiy.

If you claim any kind of fealty to judicial conservatism you must justify why a base majoritarianism should not hold sway. Assuming you accept the Supremacy Clause: this applies even if the majority is on a Federal level.

[Don Corleone]

If you claim any kind of fealty to judicial conservatism you must justify why a base majoritarianism should not hold sway. Assuming you accept the Supremacy Clause: this applies even if the majority is on a Federal level.

A base majoritanianism should only hold sway where the body of laws that created it say it should hold sway. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Commerce Clause was created to prevent individual states from levying import duties against each other. It wasn't supposed to be a 'well, if it deals with commerce in any way, shape or form, the Federal Government has the right to do with it whatever it desires".

Now, before I say I do or do not accept the Supremacy Clause, I would appreciate it if you would cite the specific article or ammendment of the Constitution to which you are referring.

[Pindar]

What are you still doing here? I thought you had been taken care of.

A base majoritanianism should only hold sway where the body of laws that created it say it should hold sway. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Commerce Clause was created to prevent individual states from levying import duties against each other. It wasn't supposed to be a 'well, if it deals with commerce in any way, shape or form, the Federal Government has the right to do with it whatever it desires".

The Commerce Clause is Article I, Section 8, Clause 3. It states: "( The Congress shall have Power) To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Determining the scope of that charge is exactly the duty of the Courts.

Establishing uniform national duties is found in Clause 1.

Now, before I say I do or do not accept the Supremacy Clause, I would appreciate it if you would cite the specific article or ammendment of the Constitution to which you are referring.

The Supremacy Clause is found in Article VI. It states: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be Supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

This is one of the legal standards used contra the secessionist dogs of the 1860's

[Xiahou]

The place to direct your attention, if you really want to see medical marijuana made legal is simple: the Congress and Executive branches. It's the laws of Congress and their enforcement by the Executive that are the real problem here. If Congress changes the drug laws so that exemptions are made for state medical marijuana, then there will be no more problem.

This is really more of a political problem than a legal one. The Court probably made the right decision on the basis of current Constitutional interpretations... even if we don't morally agree with the effect that that decision will have on the public.

Exactly- if people want this changed petition your federal congress to change the federal law. I see no problem with this decision.

I'm all for decentralization of power and states rights, but shouldn't it be done via legislative reforms instead of judicial decision? I'd much rather see judges meddle less.

[Pindar]

Exactly- if people want this changed petition your federal congress to change the federal law. I see no problem with this decision.

That is right.

I'm all for decentralization of power and states rights, but shouldn't it be done via legislative reforms instead of judicial decision? I'd much rather see judges meddle less.

I agree. The Court didn't meddle in this case. The Fed. (Attorney General) challenged California's law. This made it a Federal issue for the Courts.

[Samurai Waki]

Doesn't really apply to me, but the Magistrate here is not very lax on those possessing marijuana or any other drugs, simply because this area seems to be rather rampant with drug smugglers moving between Columbia and Florida. RN Cayman has something like 20 Patrol Boats, 4 Lynx Gunships, and a Couple of Scout Planes running all the time and busting smugglers on a daily basis.

I do however agree that Federal Government needs to stop excersizing it's right to meddle in domestic affairs, and overriding state bills. Feds need to be more concerned about economic and foreign affairs...in which case the feds haven't been doing too good of a job anyway if you look at it from a neutral or liberal viewpoint.
It's kind of funny mentioning Liberals wanting more powerful federal government, and conservatives wanting less government... isn't when right-wing conservatives who want more government, moving more towards the alignment of national-socialism?

[Duke Malcolm]

Doesn't really apply to me, but the Magistrate here is not very lax on those possessing marijuana or any other drugs, simply because this area seems to be rather rampant with drug smugglers moving between Columbia and Florida. RN Cayman has something like 20 Patrol Boats, 4 Lynx Gunships, and a Couple of Scout Planes running all the time and busting smugglers on a daily basis.

The Cayman Islands has its own branch of the Navy? Damn, I wanted to be Commander of Her Majesty's Forces in the Cayman Islands...
Does the Cayman Islands have the same drug laws as here?

[Don Corleone]

Be careful with the term 'right-wing'. It's a wide breadth of people. William F. Buckley, editor of National Review, has written some of the best arguments in favor of abandoning the 'War on Drugs' out there. For much the reasons you cite, an adherence to individual rights & liberty. If you want to ruin your life by smoking pot, that's your right. Just don't expect me to fund your lifestyle when you can't hold down a job.

My point in this case is not pot is good or pot is bad. My point was that the Federal government, citing this case as precedence, is pretty much unfettered, free to do and regulate anything they damn well please, and tough luck if you don't like it.

[Samurai Waki]

The Cayman Islands has its own branch of the Navy? Damn, I wanted to be Commander of Her Majesty's Forces in the Cayman Islands...
Does the Cayman Islands have the same drug laws as here?

Yes RN Cayman is it's own district Branch of the Royal Navy... mostly as the main base for all British Forces needing to Serve in the Caribbean. The last time any large amount of British Forces or Royal Navy Forces stationed here was during the Faulklands War... Occasionally (about every 2 to 6 months) The HMS Invincible docks here for refueling and/or any necessary repairs before embarking back to Glasgow... The Invincible Makes it's run from Glasgow to Saint Helena Island to the Faulklands to RN Cayman and Back to Glasgow.
The Caymans being a Crown Colony (although it was offered it's independence in 1964 and Refused by the Cayman Parliament) is still subject to federal law in the United Kingdom. We Pay Taxes to the United Kingdom, and therefore we are Citizens of the United Kingdom. According to Cayman Parliamentary Act of 1982 we are also economic Subsidiaries of the United States, meaning the Caymanian Dollar is essentially legal tender of the United States, but not in the UK (much like Scottish or Northern Ireland Bank Currency). Because of our Economic Standpoint, we are also subject to the Pan-American Drug Enforcement Agencies and Laws... meaning USDEA (United States Drug Enforcement Agency) is the sole authority on all drug related matters, pertaining to the illegal smuggling of drugs into the United States.
In the Caymanian Parliamentary Act of 1991 we expelled the USDEA because British Parliament did not want the United States intervention on British Soil. The NDLEA (National Drug Law Enforcement Agency) of the UK took over all USDEA matters pertaining to the Island. In 1992 The NDLEA began seeing a trend in many wealthy Caymanian Natives actually benefitting from the Drug Routes, and the Cayman Islands had a nasty underground drug Mafia, thus SAS-12 began heading up Operations in detaining the Drug Barons. With a lot of success the SAS managed to annhilate the Drug Rings in the Cayman Islands, and has held a detachment of SAS in Cayman Brak since then. In 1993 The Caymanian Parliament held all residents of the Islands as Subject to any and all laws in the United Kingdom, and called for the RN to permanently patrol all the smuggling routes that may lead into or around the Cayman Islands... thus the large detachment of Royal Navy Patrol boats and Lynx Helicopters. Once a smuggler is detained by the RN, then they become a legal subject to the United States authorities... in the case of a legal citizen in the Island that has been caught, then we are bound by UK laws pertaining to drugs and any illegal narcotics or activity.
So although we still abide by UK laws, the ones involving drugs are very strictly enforced.

[KukriKhan]

Exactly- if people want this changed petition your federal congress to change the federal law. I see no problem with this decision.

I'm all for decentralization of power and states rights, but shouldn't it be done via legislative reforms instead of judicial decision? I'd much rather see judges meddle less.

I saw it rather as an opportunity for the Supremes to undo the 1930's-era meddling it had done in over-extending Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce, when the activities involved were neither interstate, nor commercial.

They (the Court) missed that chance to return Congress and the Executive to the powers enumerated in the Constitution, and leave the rest to the States vs 'Big Brother Knows Best, and you may petition His Highness, the President and his advisory Council for reform measures.'

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Anther problem we can blae on FDR It was he pushing his New Deal through .over the objections of the supreme court I believe that started this whole train of thougt.

Heres what was in the link I posted earlier. Seems almost all the rightwing radio hosts are up in arms over this. This is Rush's take on the subject.

More Evidence of Out of Control Judiciary
June 6, 2005



BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
(AP) "Federal authorities may prosecute sick people whose doctors prescribe marijuana to ease pain, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, concluding that state laws don't protect users from a federal ban on the drug. The decision is a stinging defeat for marijuana advocates who had successfully pushed 10 states to allow the drug's use to treat various illnesses. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing the 6-3 decision, said that Congress could change the law to allow medical use of marijuana."

Now, this was a closely watched case, and it was an appeal by the Bush administration in a case that it lost in 2003, and at issue was whether the prosecution of medical marijuana users under the federal Controlled Substances Act was constitutional. Under the Constitution, Congress may pass laws regulating a state's economic activity so long as it involves interstate commerce, and that's what's interesting about this because there arguably is no interstate commerce in this. If you are sick in California -- forget that this is marijuana, I want to talk about this on the constitutional side. When I saw this ruling, you know, I kind of chuckled. I wondered what the libs are going to do with this. How are the libs are going to react to this?

Let's say that you are sick, you have cancer and your doctors prescribe medical marijuana for you in California, whatever state that made it legal. So you go get the marijuana, however it's delivered to you, and you use it to alleviate your pain or whatever it is you're suffering, your nausea, whatever it works for, I'm not sure. I don't see where the interstate commerce is there. In fact, folks, it's hilarious to read Justice John Paul Stevens lecturing about democracy because he's the leading judicial supremacist on the Supreme Court, and he routinely leads the effort to rewrite federal law even if it involves using foreign law. And in this case he basically said federal government trumps state law, and if Congress wants to change it they can go back and refuse to write a law in this case. It's sort of hilarious. But I want to look at this from the constitutional viewpoint, because look, whether it's legal or not, marijuana, that's not the point I want to get into here and I'm saying it because I don't want phone calls all day from the legalize marijuana crowd. I understand you're out there, but I don't want to deal with it. I mean, I understand you believe what you believe, that's not the point of this ruling to me, not in a constitutional sense.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT
All right, federal authorities may prosecute sick people who smoke marijuana on doctor's orders, Supreme Court ruling today. Let's just look at this a moment from a constitutional viewpoint. I've had just the barest amount of time to read the opinion, but based on the news story here, the Associated Press story, the majority's decision, it was 6-3, by the way, the majority's decision was based on the federal commerce clause. Now, for interstate commerce to occur, there needs to be a transaction between someone in a legal transaction between someone in one state and someone in another state. In this case, the product is home grown, it's used within the state, and it's used under state authorization. I'm not commenting on whether I like the idea or not. It's not the point, but the people of these ten states voted for this. You know, once again states' rights have just been squished here by the federal Supreme Court, the US Supreme Court. So, you know, take the issue out of the argument here for just a second. The question is this: What does this have to do with interstate commerce legally?

The answer is nothing. This opinion does not deal with the possibility that patient A in a state gets a legal dose of marijuana then sends it to a buddy who's not sick in another state. Doesn't deal with that. That's not what is being adjudicated here. I'll tell you where this case goes back to. This all goes back to the New Deal, folks, that is where the Supreme Court had to come up with a way to uphold all the programs that Congress was passing even though they had no power to do so under the Constitution.

Remember, the Constitution gives the federal government limited enumerated powers, and after Roosevelt tried to pack the court, the court became far more political and supportive of his agenda. Now, there was a 1942 case Wickard vs. Filburn, and in that case the Supreme Court issued what is a ridiculous decision, holding that a farmer who had grown wheat on his own farm for his own use and consumption and which was never sold or traded out of the state, was nonetheless involved in interstate commerce because the fact that he did not sell his wheat out of state or purchase wheat out of state for his own use, somehow effected interstate commerce. This is what they ruled. In other words, there would no longer be any limits to the federal government's power to regulate state and private economic activity. Now, this is not what the framers intended or what the Constitution provides. But this is what the 1942 Wickard vs. Filburn Supreme Court case resulted in. So we have people who went to the polls in several states, they voted to allow the state regulation of medical marijuana. Now, you put the politics of this aside and which political forces are on one side or the other, put even the policy aside, this is a constitutional issue for the court. So, you know, I will be interested in knowing more about the case, and I will reserve ultimate judgment until we read the arguments in full but based on this news story, this Associated Press story, you know, this is how I see it. Now, the court did in fact, we know this much, the court did in fact rely heavily on Wickard vs. Filburn in making this ruling. That's the case which brought us the New Deal, that is the case which made the New Deal constitutional, if you will, 1942, commerce clause includes commerce solely within a state. The interstate commerce clause deals with the commerce among the several states, but the 1942 Wickard vs. Filburn case said no, no, no, no, interstate commerce can be commerce within a state. But it's hilarious to read Justice Stevens lecturing about democracy because he's the guy that wants to look at foreign law a lot, writes his own law from the bench. He did say in this case if Congress wants to change this they can write a law specific to it.

The other reason Congress has to write a law specific to it is because the US Supreme Court in 1942, in order to authorize the New Deal and make it constitutional, went ahead and changed the Constitution without there being such a law on the books. So Congress now has to go back and correct what the 1942 Supreme Court did if they want to limit interstate commerce to one state or prohibit interstate commerce from including one state. It's now up to Congress by this decision to go back and say, "No, no, no, no, Wickard vs. Filburn, that's not what we meant. If a state passes a law on medical marijuana, and the people there vote for it, the representatives vote for it, that's not interstate commerce." That's how convoluted things have become, folks. The court might say the law is unconstitutional, if Congress did try to -- yeah, just because Justice Stevens said Congress will have to write a new law doesn't mean that this court would find a new law constitutional if it contradicts one of its own decisions. And this is where you get into this whole argument, "Do we have any recourse to deal with the courts, even with our elected officials?" I mean, in this case, Justice Stevens in his majority opinion clearly says Congress needs to go back, they want to make this legal and rewrite it. But it's convoluted because without the previous Supreme Court case -- I hope I'm making this understandable. It's so crazy, you might think, "Rush, there's something you're missing here. How can they do this, how can they say interstate commerce is state commerce? How can they say that?" They did. It was crucial, folks, in establishing the New Deal, and by the way, making the New Deal constitutional is part of institutionalizing the New Deal and its ideological underpinnings, which are liberalism, so it's a convoluted case.
Again, I don't want to spend any time today, Mr. Winterble, on legal marijuana, illegal marijuana, it's happened before on this program and when it starts... I mean, these calls last for a week, so I just don't want to go there. By the way, one of the reasons Janice Rogers Brown -- by the way, her vote comes up this week, her vote could come as early as Wednesday with William Pryor, perhaps, on Friday. Now, Janice Rogers Brown, in that famous speech that we posted on our website and I read excerpts from on this program about three weeks ago, she questioned the whole constitutional underpinning via Supreme Court decisions of the New Deal and that's why Ted Kennedy and others just threw up their arms in opposition, how could she dare do this? She says when the Constitution was altered by the US Supreme Court in this case and others in order to legalize the New Deal and make it constitutional by twisting and bending the Constitution that's when she says an aura of -- used the word socialism -- was sanctioned as a means of governing the country and that's why she has been under such vicious assault.

There was another Supreme Court decision today, and it is this. "The Supreme Court, expanding the scope of a landmark federal disabilities law, ruled Monday that foreign cruise lines sailing in U.S. waters must provide better access for passengers in wheelchairs. The narrow 6-3 decision is a victory for disabled rights advocates, who said inadequate ship facilities inhibited their right to 'participate fully in society.'" Here's the majority. Kennedy, who wrote; John Paul Stevens; David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer. The dissent was written by Justice Scalia. He argued that extending the federal law to foreign ships, "will create international discord and is wrong because Congress did not explicitly call for it. The ruling should leave no opening for ships to be required to change their amenities to fit the laws of each country they visit," he said. This is sort of the international law argument in reverse, if you will, because Scalia said not only should we not import foreign law into our decisions, we shouldn't impose our law on other nations. Now, seems to me that Scalia is being quite consistent here. The others are not. Now, I know many of you say, "Rush, this is harmless, so what, they should have to modify this." It's all a matter of law and the Constitution, folks. Take your feelings out of these things and take each issue out of it, and examine what the court's doing, you have a better understanding of why so many people are concerned and why so many people say the judiciary is out of control and needs to be reined in.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Talking about Justice Stevens saying that Congress wants to change the Supreme Court ruling today, they need to go write a new law. I was in error. He was not suggesting write a law that would conflict with the previous Supreme Court decision. What he was saying was, if Congress doesn't like this they can write a law legalizing marijuana use for medical purposes. So that's his suggested remedy, Congress can write a law legalizing marijuana use if they don't like this ruling.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Everett in Elk Grove, California. We go back to the phones. Welcome, sir, nice to have you with us.

CALLER: Dittos, Rush.

RUSH: Thank you, sir.

CALLER: I am disabled but I think that law -- or the court's judgment isn't exporting our law because I think any ship or airplane that comes into our waters or on our land needs to be obey our laws. I want to take away -- let's say it's not the disability act. I woke up the second Friday in May of '69 totally blind so I have a sensitivity to disabled people, but let's take that law out, and let's say the boat was licensed in a country where it's legal to have sex with 12-year-olds, we wouldn't be able to -- when it came into New York harbor, we wouldn't be able to do anything about it. So I think they should apply, and I don't really think it's exporting --

RUSH: Now, I don't think that's the point. I don't think anybody would be drawing that conclusion. I don't know that any country has sex with 12-year-olds legal, particularly on their cruise ships. If somebody does, I know a bunch of people are going to be signing up. I don't know them personally, but I mean you just know that if that's legal you'll have some people signing up for this. It doesn't happen. See, this is the problem. This is the problem. We've got somebody who's disabled and that trumps everything. And I said, forget the issue. Not only in this, but on the medical marijuana. This is an exercise, it was an attempted exercise in explaining why some people are upset about what some think is an out-of-control judiciary that needs to be reined in. On the one hand we have a Supreme Court, which says, "Yeah, it's totally fine to incorporate foreign law into US constitutional law as we decide cases here, it's totally fine to consult foreign thinking if we can't find any." By the way, this is all about the personal policy preference of the justices, so we can't find anything in American law that backs up what I want to do, go find it in international law. Then they import it, bammo, we can do it because we're the Supreme Court. Scalia says no, you shouldn't do that. By the same token, if we're going to say that the Americans for Disabilities Act applies to ships that are made and registered in foreign countries, then we ought to be able to say that every other one of our laws applies to any business that does business in the United States or with Americans and so forth, and look, I'm in the majority on this. It was a 6-3 case, and even my buddy Clarence Thomas was in the majority on this case. Scalia was the only one dissenting in this, but it may not even be the best example, because nobody here is against helping out disabled people. That's why this is such a tough thing to argue on this side of it because it's such an emotional case, or situation, disability. But, you know, the Americans with Disability Act has a lot more to it than just wheelchair access or access for blind people. The Americans with Disability Act has been used to say alcoholism is a disease and you can't fire anybody for it, so technically a cruise line could have a drunk waiter and they couldn't get rid of him when he's working in US waters if you're going to go this way. It's up to you, folks, your country. You know, I got mine.

END TRANSCRIPT
(SJMN: Plaintiffs in medical marijuana case to defy Supreme Court ruling)
(CSM: ''No'' on medical marijuana use)
(AP: Rehnquist Backs Medical Marijuana Patients)
(US court: Government can bar medical marijuana use)
(Taxpayer Group Criticizes Medical Marijuana Decision)

[Steppe Merc]

Wow. Right wingers for marijiuana...

[Don Corleone]

Not in favor of pot, in favor of making the guys in charge play by the rules. Personally, I don't think the Federal government needs to get into local crime & regulation issues. Pindar & others think it's a good thing to have the Federal government calling all the shots.