On election day, the District of Columbia overwhelmingly passed a ballot initiative that would legalize small amounts of recreational dope. Potheads all over the city celebrated.
That was then. As of today, Congress is set to effectively overturn the District's action. It has the right to do so under the city's Home Rule Charter. It is exercising that right because, apparently (and justifiably), it believes that the seat of the federal government should abide by federal law. Imagine that.
As noted many times before, CJLF takes no position on pot legalization. My personal view is that it should remain just as illegal as it is now, to wit, not a whole lot, but some. Essentially no one in this city goes to jail for privately smoking a joint, and legalizing would send a message of de facto endorsement that society is better advised to withhold.
To be clear, Bill, am I right to conclude you favor (at least in this setting and perhaps others) having Congress overrule the popular votes/views of a locality if/when that localities votes/views "would send a message ... that [Congress concludes] society is better advised to withhold"?
Doug,
No, but you would be right to conclude that I favor Congress's prerogative to overrule the views of "a locality" (nice way of putting it) when that "locality" has the unique status of the District of Columbia, whose Home Rule Charter explicitly provides for a Congressional veto of local law.
I also favor the Supremacy Clause, which came in really handy in the civil rights era.
You are right, of course, that DC is a distinct locality both formally and functionally. There is little doubt Congress has authority to do what it is doing in response to Initiative 71.
But, because I fear you (and some others on the right) are often drawn toward big government/anti-free-market/paternalistic arguments in support of marijuana prohibitions, I am trying to get a fuller sense as to (1) whether you think marijuana policy is a matter that ought generally be subject to local control/influence or instead should be generally controlled by top-down mandates from Congress, and (2) whether Congress ought to generally fell more empowered to overturn local control efforts (in DC or elsewhere) if/whenever it thinks certain local control choices would "send the wrong message" in the eyes of Congress.