The Attorney Generals of Oklahoma and Nebraska, Scott Pruitt and Jon Bruning respectively, have given us another example of right-wing hyprocisy. Not a surprise in itself, but given the tendency of members of that particular cohort to blather on incessantly about principles, particularly constitutional principles, this particular example is especially blatant.
Pruitt and Bruning have got themselves all lathered up about the decsion of voters in Colorado to legalize marijuana. they're so worked up, in fact, that they've filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. Supreme Court. They claim that the law is unconstitutional and that their states are suffering - more marijuana, they assert, is finding it's way into their otherwise pristine states - because of Colorado voters exercise of democracy:
Bruning, along with Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, argue that under the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause, Colorado's legalization of recreational marijuana is unconstitutional because marijuana remains illegal under federal law. The clause states that in general, federal law takes precedence over state law.
"The illegal products being distributed in Colorado are being trafficked across state lines thereby injuring neighboring states like Oklahoma and Nebraska," Pruitt said in a statement.
Such intangible harm, of course, is often only in the mind of the beholder, somewhat similar to the way up-tight righties contend that same-sex marriage will destroy their own happy homes and rot America's moral fiber. Bruning and Pruitt may, for all I know, have a point about the Supremacy Clause, although it seems to be moot if the federal government chooses not to pursue the matter.
What is more interesting is that Brunning's and Pruitt's lawsuit puts much of their previous, very strident nullification rhetoric to the lie. Both these gentlemen, who are currently so worried that Colorado is in violation of the Supremacy Clause, are heroes of fanatic fringwing nullification advocates. Wikipedia succintly defines nullification as "a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional." This contention is usually defended by appeals to the 10th Amendment.
Bruning distinguished himself in 2003 by filing a constitutional challenge against the Safe Drinking Water act and an EPA rule stiffening regulations of arsenic in drinking water. He argued that Congress lacked the power to regulate contaminants in waterways confined to one state, and that the 10th amendment "prohibits Congress from requiring states to control tap water contamination." Of course, the suit was thrown out and derided by the presding judges as overtly "frivolous."
But Bruning hasn't given up on the nullification rhetoric. In an opinion piece he authored in 2012 in The American Thinker, he declared:
Americans are frustrated. Government spending has gone ballistic, unaccountable bureaucrats intrude on every aspect of the economy, and more and more of our personal lives are being dictated from Washington D.C. The citizenry keep voicing their objections, but nobody cares to listen. People have gone beyond frustration; they want to halt this runaway system and stop the nationalization of their neighborhoods and personal lives.
Initiatives have arisen from every corner of the country to reign in a power-crazed government. State lawsuits have proliferated against ObamaCare and EPA regulations. States have passed laws reasserting the 10th Amendment, limiting ObamaCare, and pushing back against the growing tide of illegal immigration. Some recommend a constitutional amendment to give states veto power over federal law. ...
Pruitt most recently
demostrated his nullification chops when it came to the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
... Oklahoma Attorney General E. Scott Pruitt, a Republican whose state has refused to set up an insurance exchange, has urged a federal district court to invalidate the IRS rule and thereby nullify the employer mandate in Oklahoma.
Pruitt vs. Burwell, which attempts to void the ACA for those states that refused to set up an exchange, may well end up
crippling the law and, if you want to talk about harm, causing real suffering for millions of Americans.
But Pruitt's opposition to the imposition of federal laws goes much further. The Center for Individuial Freedom, writing about their “State Sovereignty Project” approvingly notes that Pruitt has gone the extra mile in opposing federal law, observing that "so dedicated is he to the principle of “federalism” – the vertical diffusion of power allowing the states on some subjects to limit the dangerous centralizing power of the federal government – that he has assigned a team of attorneys to a separate 'office of federalism' devoted exclusively to fighting abuses by the feds."
These are the two Attorney Generals who want to bring down on the state of Colorado what they might, given their previously expressed beliefs, consider a federal juggernaut. It's easy to condemn such hypocrisy, but if you look closely on the right you'll find many more examples, though few so egregious. What this example does is emphasize the fact that much of the country is under the control of folks who pursue power above all, sell us out at every juncture, pander to closed-minded prejudices and attempt to justify it all with a glossy constituional paint-job. That's how you get folks in government shouldering their metaphorical guns against a federal government so tyranical it tries to ensure safe drinking water, clean air and adequate healthcare, while calling in the feds to keep the other guy, in this case Colorado, from pursuing the will of the people.