Pubdate: Thu, 08 Aug 2013 Source: Chicago Tribune (IL) Copyright: 2013 Chicago Tribune Company Contact: http://drugsense.org/url/IuiAC7IZ Website: http://www.chicagotribune.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/82 Page: 24 NULLIFYING WASHINGTON How States May Assert Their Rights - and How They May Not After 224 years, you might think some basic issues of government in our republic would be settled - particularly the correct division of power between the states and the federal government. But despite all the blood and ink spilled over that issue during the Civil War and the civil rights revolution, it's still the subject of contention. And lately, the battle has been getting more intense. The passage of Obamacare, combined with proposals in Congress to expand federal gun laws, has elicited a strong reaction from anti-Washington forces. Kansas recently enacted a law barring federal regulation of any guns made and kept within its borders - as several other states have done. Kansas also made it a crime for anyone to try to enforce such restrictions. Some states have acted to nullify Obamacare's individual mandate to have health insurance. The impulse is not strictly a conservative one. The Tenth Amendment Center, which favors nullification efforts, says they really began when states began to allow medical use of marijuana in defiance of federal drug policy. The American Civil Liberties Union encouraged states to refuse to go along with the Real ID act, which imposed rules for state driver's licenses. The medical marijuana movement has dramatized an important reality: If states refuse to go along with federal law, they can make it very hard for Washington to enforce its preference. The Drug Enforcement Administration can and does raid cannabis dispensaries, but without the help of local police, its effectiveness is limited. That's part of what those behind the "nullification" effort hope to do in other areas. States do have rights that can undermine federal undertakings. Many states have declined to set up the health care exchanges that are supposed to help implement Obamacare - forcing the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to take on the burden. Many states also have refused to expand Medicaid coverage as the administration encouraged them to do. Their uncooperative approach could badly hinder the administration's plans. Where the issue gets dicey is when states assert their right to invalidate such laws - such as existing restrictions on firearms. The Constitution states unequivocally that federal law overrules state law, not the other way around. State officials have every right to challenge federal measures in court. The final word on whether laws are constitutional, though, comes from the Supreme Court and no one else. Now that the court has upheld Obamacare, states don't have the option of treating it as illegal. Even more malignant are attempts to criminalize federal law enforcement. Kansas doesn't have to like federal gun laws and it doesn't have to help the feds enforce them. But it has no right to actively impede enforcement. Even think tanks that favor curbing the power of Washington, like the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation, oppose such extreme action. Cynics may dismiss these nullification efforts as empty gestures meant to impress gullible voters. It's safe to assume that many of the lawmakers who support such measures know their laws won't survive judicial scrutiny. The larger principle here: It's a mistake for the nullifiers to think they're entitled to overturn the mechanisms established to resolve even the bitterest policy disputes. Example: The claim that Congress can't legislate on guns that never cross a state border rests on the theory that they fall outside Washington's power to regulate interstate commerce. That reasoning, however, was firmly rejected by the Supreme Court in a 2005 case challenging drug laws. "Prohibiting the intrastate possession or manufacture of an article of commerce is a rational (and commonly utilized) means of regulating commerce in that product," said the court. In disputes such as this, the feds will ultimately prevail. But they shouldn't be too cavalier about nullification efforts, which indicate that many Americans feel the federal government has exceeded its rightful authority and is intruding into places it shouldn't. It would also be a mistake for our leaders in Washington to forget the value of understanding what these people are angry about. It's not enough to win the policy wars. It's equally important for the victors to find ways to bridge the differences that remain. - --- MAP posted-by: Matt