Federalism/Federal System- (created in the US, 1789) defined it is the philosophy that describes the governmental system created by the Framers; system of government where the national government and state governments derive all authority from the people. Federalism is important because it offered the federal government an effective means to run the nation as a whole, rather than have it function as individual states that sometimes came together, which happened under the Articles of Confederation.

Today the state and federal governments clash over many things. Theoretically, any powers that are not expressly given to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved for the states by the 10th amendment. However, according to the Supremacy Clause the Constitution, US Treaties and laws pursuant to the Constitution are the “supreme laws of the land”. This sometimes causes gray areas in the law, questions arise about sovereignty and in those cases we often see battles arise between the two governing bodies. Some hot button issues include:

  • Gun Control
  • Medicinal Marijuana
  • Gay Marriage
  • Immigration
  • Voter Rights
  • Abortion

FederalismNote Taking Guide

Directions-Take detailed notes in the corresponding box. (Remember you’re trying to answer the guiding questions

Medicinal Marijuana

Gay Marriage

Immigration

Gun Control

Voter Rights/ID Laws

Abortion

ISSUE 1: Medicinal Marijuana

Guiding Questions

  1. What are is the state’s perspective on this issue? How does that clash with the federal government’s laws, opinions, etc.?
  1. What positive and negative impacts does this issue have on the community (state)?
  2. Prediction: Based on the article, what might you guess will happen next between the state and the federal government? Who appears to be winning the fight?

Resource 1)Obama 'worse' than Bush, Clinton on pot, state lawmaker says

By:Joshua Sabatini | 10/07/11 SF Examiner Staff Writer

The U.S. Department of Justice’s crackdown on medical marijuana in California has infuriated marijuana advocates who have tirelessly worked to ensure patients have safe access to the drug and move toward legalization.

The crackdown prompted Assemblymember Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, to say President Barack Obama’s policies on medical marijuana “are worse than Bush and Clinton.”

Ammiano, who has worked to try and legalize medical marijuana statewide, issued a statement following DOJ’s first public statement Friday about the crackdown.

“I am bitterly disappointed in the Obama Administration for this unwarranted and destructive attack on medical marijuana and patients’ rights to medicine,” Ammiano said in a statement. “Today’s announcement by the Department of Justice means that Obama’s medical marijuana policies are worse than Bush and Clinton. It’s a tragic return to failed policies that will cost the state millions in tax revenue and harm countless lives. 16 states along with the District of Columbia have passed medical marijuana laws - whatever happened to the promises he made on the campaign trail to not prosecute medical marijuana or the 2009 DOJ memo saying that states with medical marijuana laws would not be prosecuted? Change we can believe in? Instead we get more of the same.”

In San Francisco, at least three landlords received letters from the feds telling them they must shutdown the pot clubs or face felony charges and forfeiture of their buildings. On Friday, U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag for the Northern District of California said the feds would likely crackdown on other pot clubs in San Francisco and the Bay Area. “Although our initial efforts in the Northern District focus on only certain marijuana stores, we will almost certainly be taking action against others. None are immune from action by the federal government,” she said. There are 26 permitted pot clubs in San Francisco.

Resource 2) Pot clubs in San Francisco receive threatening notes from feds, By:Joshua Sabatini | 10/06/11 SF Examiner Staff Writer

San Francisco’s medical marijuana dispensaries are under attack after at least three landlords of pot clubs were sent threatening letters from the Department of Justice as part of a statewide crackdown. The letters are the latest conflict between San Francisco — where medical marijuana is legal under local and state law — and the federal government, which deems the drug illegal.

The letters, sent by U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag to at least three landlords of Mission neighborhood dispensaries, cite a federal law that increases penalties for drug activity within 1,000 feet of schools and other public spaces. San Francisco’s pot club regulations prohibit dispensaries from operating within 1,000 feet of schools, but a handful of the city’s 26 clubs were grandfathered in and exempted.

The letters warn the property owners that their buildings could be forfeited to the federal government without compensation and any rent money seized. “Violation of the federal law … is a felony crime, and carries with it a penalty of up to 40 years in prison when operating within a prohibited distance of a school,” said a copy of one letter.

Similar letters have reportedly been sent out to dispensaries throughout the state. At least 12 pot clubs in San Diego received the threatening missives, as did the Marin Alliance for Medical Marijuana in Fairfax. The Department of Justice would not comment Thursday but is expected to make an announcement today.

For medical marijuana advocates, the letters are only the latest in a string of alarming federal enforcement actions. Operators have found financial institutions no longer welcome them as banking customers and the IRS has ruled dispensaries cannot deduct expenses such as payroll as other businesses do.

The trend is particularly troubling for advocates who believed President Barack Obama’s election would usher in a new tone where feds would back off and respect local and state laws on medical marijuana. But the opposite is happening, they say. “Obama has really done nothing to change Bush-era policies in this regard,” said Dale Gieringer, director of the California chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

Advocates are bracing to fight back this concerted crackdown, as they have done in the past. Stephanie Tucker, a member of The City’s medical marijuana task force, said the letters are a “slap in the face.” “We need to move forward in legalization,” Tucker said, “Enough is enough. This is a waste of resources.” This is not the first time federal law enforcement has used threatening letters against San Francisco landlords who rent out space to medical marijuana dispensaries. Similar letters were sent out in 2007.

Resource 3) Medical Marijuana Crackdown In Colorado: 10 More Dispensaries Near Schools Forced To Shut Down Posted: 09/19/2012

Jars full of medical marijuana are seen at a dispensary.

This is the third wave of letters Walsh has sent out to Colorado dispensares deemed too close to schools. Walsh's actions have resulted in a total of 57 medical marijuana dispensaries that have now been shuttered since the crackdown began in January in what has become the most aggressive law-enforcement action against the medical marijuana industry that the federal government has pursued in the state.

And the crackdown will not be ending anytime soon it appears. In a press release, Walsh's office said that a fourth wave of letters is forthcoming as additional marijuana shops are identified within this 1,000 foot “drug-free school zone.”

Walsh's office cites the Controlled Substances Act, title 21, section 860, a federal law which references the 1,000 foot boundary for manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance near a school or college, although nothing in Colorado's medical marijuana law specifies the distance between a shop and a school, the decision, like most such zoning matters, is left to local communities.

"I can see no legitimate basis in this judicial district to focus the resources of the United States government on the medical marijuana dispensaries that are otherwise compliant with Colorado law or local regulation," Boulder District Attorney Stan Garnett told Walsh in a recent letter. "The people of Boulder County do not need Washington, D.C., or the federal government dictating how far dispensaries should be from schools, or other fine points of local land use law.”

However, Walsh is dedicated to this crackdown. In a copy of a letter responding to Garnett obtained by The Denver Post in March, Walsh reiterated his intent to close all dispensaries operating within 1,000 feet of a school, and noted that these closures are "not at the direction of Washington, D.C., but [at Walsh's direction] as U.S. Attorney and as a Coloradan."

While the feds crackdown on medical marijuana, Coloradans are getting ready to vote on Amendment 64 and will decide whether Colorado should legalize marijuana this November.

Amendment 64 seeks legalization and regulation of marijuana for recreational use for adults and appears to be quite popular amongst Colorado voters. Severalrecentpolls show that a strong majority of Coloradans favor the ballot measure

ISSUE 2: Gay Marriage

Guiding Questions

  1. What are is the state’s perspective on this issue? How does that clash with the federal government’s laws, opinions, etc.?
  1. What positive and negative impacts does this issue have on the community (state)?
  2. Prediction: Based on the article, what might you guess will happen next between the state and the federal government? Who appears to be winning the fight?

Resource 1) Fighting at the ballot box for the right to marry August 26, 2012 9:39 AM

Resource 2) Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Gay Marriage Likely To Go Before Supreme Court Within The Next Year By KRISTEN WYATT 09/19/12

The 1996 law has been declared unconstitutional by a federal judge in New York and is awaiting arguments before the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Those oral arguments are scheduled for Sept. 27. The law was passed by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton after the Hawaii Supreme Court issued a ruling in 1993 making it appear Hawaii might legalize gay marriage.

Since then, many states have banned gay marriage, while eight states have approved it, led by Massachusetts in 2004 and continuing with Connecticut, New York, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maryland and Washington state. Maryland and Washington's laws aren't yet in effect and might be subject to referendums.

In February 2011, President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder instructed the Department of Justice to no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act. Ginsburg's remarks came at a conference sponsored by the University of Colorado law school. Ginsburg talked mostly about entering the legal profession when there were few female lawyers and even fewer judges. The students roared with laughter when Ginsburg told of scrambling even to find a women's restroom in law school at Columbia University in the 1950s. "We never complained, that's just the way it was," she said to laughter from the students.

Resource 3) Gay Marriage Ban Challenged in Illinois By STEVEN YACCINO Published: May 30, 2012

M. Spencer Green/Associated Press

The move comes just a year after a civil union law took effect in Illinois, granting an array of legal protections for same-sex couples that are similar to those of marriage. It took supporters years to gather enough votes to pass the legislation, and hundreds of people turned out to watch Gov. Pat Quinn, a Democrat, sign the law, which many gay-rights advocates considered to be a major victory.

But some say it does not go far enough. “By excluding these families from marriage and relegating them to civil unions, a lesser status, government has branded these families as inferior, as less deserving than other families,” Camilla Taylor, national director of Lambda Legal’s Marriage Project, said at a news conference on Wednesday.

Lambda Legal, which was involved in a similar lawsuit in Iowa that led that state’s Supreme Court to overturn a ban on gay marriage in 2009, also has lawsuits pending in Nevada and New Jersey. Same-sex marriage is not recognized by the federal government but is now legal in six states, including New York, and the District of Columbia.

The Illinois lawsuits have been filed at a time when the issue seems to be shifting quickly. Recent public opinion surveys indicate support for same-sex marriage is rising nationwide. Still, this month voters in North Carolina overwhelmingly approved an amendment to the state Constitution banning gay marriage. Shortly afterward, Mr. Obama made his historic, if symbolic, endorsement of same-sex marriage.

In Illinois, where the General Assembly is dominated by Democrats, the civil union bill did not pass easily: 32 to 24 in the State Senate, and 61 to 52 in the House. A gay marriage bill is now stalled in the legislature, and some opponents see the new lawsuits as a shift in focus from the statehouse to the courthouse. “I think it’s dangerous to use the courts to adjudicate these important social questions,” said Robert Gilligan, executive director of the Catholic Conference of Illinois, which also opposed the civil union law. John Knight, director of the A.C.L.U.’s gay-related litigation in the Midwest, said Wednesday that the group intended to “fight the battle in both venues.”

Exactly how the fight will play out is unclear. A spokesman for the Cook County state’s attorney office, which is generally responsible for defending the county clerk, declined to comment.

Mr. Orr, however, cheered on the lawsuits against him, while acknowledging that his hands are tied by state law. “I hope this lawsuit clears the last hurdle to achieving equal marriage rights for all,” he said in a statement.

ISSUE 3: Immigration

Guiding Questions – please answer on your note taking guide.

  1. What are/is the state’s perspective on this issue? How does that clash with the federal government’s laws, opinions, etc.?
  1. What positive and negative impacts does this issue have on the community (state)?
  2. Prediction: Based on the article, what might you guess will happen next between the state and the federal government? Who appears to be winning the fight?

Resource 1) California Dream Act Signed By Jerry Brown: Second Bill Passes

On Saturday, Governor Jerry Brown signed AB 131, the second bill of the two-part California Dream Act, allowing undocumented immigrant students to apply for state-funded financial aid for college.

In July, Brown signed AB 130, making funding from private sources available to undocumented students. With Saturday's signing of AB 131, the California Dream Act passed in its entirety, granting undocumented students access to public and private funding for college.

"Going to college is a dream that promises intellectual excitement and creative thinking," said Brown in a press release. "The Dream Act benefits us all by giving top students a chance to improve their lives and the lives of all of us."

According to the California Department of Finance, about 2,500 students will qualify for Cal Grants as a result of the bill, at a cost of $14.5 million. This amount will make up 1 percent of the annual $1.4 billion budget of the Cal Grant program.

Resource 2) Supreme Court upholds key part of Arizona law for now, strikes down other provisions

By Robert Barnes, Published: June25, 2012

The Supreme Court on Monday struck down several key parts of Arizona’s tough law on illegal immigrants, but it left standing a controversial provision requiring police to check the immigration status of people they detain and suspect to be in the country illegally.The 5 to 3 decision upholding the “show me your papers” provision came with a warning that the courts would be watching its implementation. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) declared victory and said police could enforce the law without resorting to profiling based on ethnicity.

But the ruling, which reinforced the federal government’s primacy in immigration policy, also vindicated the Obama administration’s decision to challenge the Arizona law almost from the moment it was passed. The justices will rule Thursday on the constitutionality of President Obama’s most important priority before the court: the health-care law, his signature domestic achievement. It will be the final day of a term that has been dominated by questions about the power of the federal government.

The immigration decision comes as the issue has taken a central spot in the nation’s political conversation and domestic agenda, even as the numbers of illegal immigrants coming to this country have fallen. It is likely to be just one in a series of court decisions about the role states may play in combating illegal immigration; five states have adopted laws similar to Arizona’s, and others are waiting in the wings. Obama recently ignited new controversy by announcing that many immigrants under age 30 who were brought to this country illegally by their parents would not be deported. In an unusual moment Monday, a dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia mentioned Obama’s policy as he spoke from the bench to criticize the majority’s decision.

In oral arguments on the Arizona law, the justices had seemed skeptical of the administration’s vision of the subordinate role states must play in immigration matters. But Justice Anthony M. Kennedy spelled out states’ limited role, even as he acknowledged criticism that the failure of Congress and the executive branch to form a comprehensive immigration strategy has led to severe hardships.