posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 11:33 PM
This is a paradox. If State's rights means that the federal government must not tell the states what to do, namely potentially accomdate MM, then
Alabama must do the job to argue against a duly constituted decision by the people of the State of California through referendum. Here are the
representatives of a state aruing against the decision of the people on this one issue. On the face of it, this is not necessarily a decision
of the state government, but the people puting binders on a State. Here it must refrain from bothering its people who are sick and in their view have
The 10th amendment here is in the most broad sense about the rights of the people, since it is the people who assembled in cause to overturn what they
regarded as an unjust law in its application. The Constitution says "We the people," not "We the States." There was an early argument, was there
not, to say the latter?
So this kind of situation goes right back to the beginning, the founding of this nation. Our founding fathers were far wiser than many of us today,
since we do not have the time to think about anything it seems. Perhaps Alabama should ask its people, in a hand counted paper ballot referendum what
they think before interfering with a decision of the people of another state? Also the Supreme Court could take the innovative option of doing
the same nationwide as counsel to their design?
[edit on 5-12-2004 by SkipShipman]