The recent ruling regarding the use of marijuana for medical purposes is a perfect example of a federal government whose courts seem all too willing to overstep the bounds of the Constitution. Here is a brief excerpt from the Washington Post on the issue:

In a 6-3 decision Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that federal officials have the authority to prosecute those who use marijuana for medical purposes. This includes those who reside in states that permit it, creating an unclear guideline in which the laws themselves remain untouched but those who practice medical marijuana use are not shielded by the state. What practical effect will this have on medical marijuana use? What is the next step in the battle over this controversial practice?

Now, I’m not the biggest advocate of marijuana being used for medicinal purposes… As a matter of fact, I’m not an advocate of marijuana in any way, shape, or form. But the people of the state of California voted by a large majority in 1996 to allow its use for medicinal purposes.

So, in one fell swoop, the US Supreme Court nullified the will of the majority of Californians, not in striking down the law, but in its ruling to allow federal officials to prosecute anyone in possession of marijuana, even though the state itself authorizes some doctors and patients to use it.

Confused? Me too.

One thing is clear; liberals, many of whom supported California’s medical marijuana initiative, should now FINALLY understand why conservatives get their underwear in a twist when the federal courts take liberties which are not theirs to take. The Tenth Amendment specifically reserves powers not listed, such as criminal law enforcement, to the states; right?

I’m only 40, so I don’t claim to be the oldest and wisest guy around (though, some, if asked, will tell you what a wise guy I am), but one thing I know to be true based on everything history teaches us, governments always seek to grow, take on more power, and, of course more authority. Now, if you happen to be an advocate of big government, then you are likely okay with this.

But here’s the problem… As government gets bigger and more powerful, it also gets more intrusive. In this case, this larger, more intrusive government, which also happens to currently be more conservative, has a greater ability to interfere with your life.

So, for you liberals out there, would you rather have a larger, more powerful, more intrusive conservative federal government, that can interfere and put an end to state initiatives that you see as important, or a smaller, less intrusive one? Personally, I would rather have a smaller less intrusive government, be it conservative or liberal. And I say that as a guy who lives in a pretty liberal state!

But if I ever get overly fed up with my state and local government being TOO liberal, I can always move to a more conservative state. And for my liberal friends, if you don’t like your state government because it’s too conservative, you can move to where I live.

But if our federal government gets too intrusive, AND happens to be conservative at the same time… Will liberals maintain their gung-ho attitude towards big government? Lets hope not.

Government works best when it’s a partnership between the people and those they elect to represent them. I hope now liberals understand a little bit better why conservatives feel very uneasy about the damage that can be caused by unchecked activism in the courtroom. I’m not sure that this recent Supreme Court decision is ground-breaking in terms of it’s intrusiveness, but the Supremes did undermine the will of a large majority of Californians, and that should be a cause of concern for liberals and conservatives alike.

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com