South Dakota weed

[orathaic]

https://amp.argusleader.com/amp/4442883001

The state gov decided to support the court case to overturn a vote by the people.

Is this not likely to come back to bite him in the ass?

[Matticus13]

Kristi Noem is pretty popular in the republican dominated state. Her ass will be just fine.

The argument they are using to overturn the amendment is a technicality. It's pretty much the same strategy they used in Nebraska to throw the proposed amendment off the ballot. It will probably work :/

[brainbomb]

sadly yes nebraska ignored a measure voted on by the people to add medical weed

[orathaic]

I understand that it is a technicality, it just seems like a bad approach to dealing with a democratic vote.

If the David Cameron govt had wanted to ignore the Brexit vote's result on a technicality, they could definitely have opposed it (as it wasn't legally binding) but it would have been political suicide.

That said, I don't know much about South Dakota (hence me asking for opinions here).

[Octavious]

Acts of political suicide tend to involve pissing off the people who vote for you. I dare say not many Republican voters will be upset by a hard line being taken against legalising cannabis. Some may well prefer it to be legal from a personal responsibility / small state point of view, but few will be passionate about it.

[flash2015]

I am not sure what the problem is. Kristi Noem is just trying to ensure that the 190,477 people who didn't want marijuana legalized are not silenced.

[New England Fire Squad]

Judges overturning things people voted for in the USA is so common that it usually doesn't even make headlines. I'm only 27, but I recall the vast majority of states voting against gay marriage, and the supreme court invalidating all of those votes. At the end of the day, most people in South Dakota probably don't really care. It's one of the most conservative states in the union, and voters there, whether or not they support legalization, won't be throwing out a Republican government for a Democrat one over this.

[orathaic]

Judges overturning things people voted for in the USA is so common that it usually doesn't even make headlines. I'm only 27, but I recall the vast majority of states voting against gay marriage, and the supreme court invalidating all of those votes. At the end of the day, most people in South Dakota probably don't really care. It's one of the most conservative states in the union, and voters there, whether or not they support legalization, won't be throwing out a Republican government for a Democrat one over this.

1) they could throw the governor out in a primary fashion and thus get a new republican.

2) the Supreme Court is an important check. You can't take away people's constitutional rights by voting for it. Be it gay marriage, freedom of speech, or the right to vote.

The right to smoke/sell weed is not protected by the constitution, nor is the power to deny that explicitly granted to the government (state/federal).

Should it be?

[Matticus13]

Judges overturning things people voted for in the USA is so common that it usually doesn't even make headlines. I'm only 27, but I recall the vast majority of states voting against gay marriage, and the supreme court invalidating all of those votes. At the end of the day, most people in South Dakota probably don't really care. It's one of the most conservative states in the union, and voters there, whether or not they support legalization, won't be throwing out a Republican government for a Democrat one over this.

1) they could throw the governor out in a primary fashion and thus get a new republican.

2) the Supreme Court is an important check. You can't take away people's constitutional rights by voting for it. Be it gay marriage, freedom of speech, or the right to vote.

The right to smoke/sell weed is not protected by the constitution, nor is the power to deny that explicitly granted to the government (state/federal).

Should it be?

1) That's not a realistic scenario in South Dakota.

2) You can add or subtract constitutional rights via amendments, which requires votes by the states. It has happened 27 times.

US Congress should step up and pass the necessary legislation. An amendment isn't necessary.

[orathaic]

I understand how passing amendments is supposed to work.

It is meant to be harder to prevent certain basic things being taken away.

[New England Fire Squad]

Judges overturning things people voted for in the USA is so common that it usually doesn't even make headlines. I'm only 27, but I recall the vast majority of states voting against gay marriage, and the supreme court invalidating all of those votes. At the end of the day, most people in South Dakota probably don't really care. It's one of the most conservative states in the union, and voters there, whether or not they support legalization, won't be throwing out a Republican government for a Democrat one over this.

1) they could throw the governor out in a primary fashion and thus get a new republican.

2) the Supreme Court is an important check. You can't take away people's constitutional rights by voting for it. Be it gay marriage, freedom of speech, or the right to vote.

The right to smoke/sell weed is not protected by the constitution, nor is the power to deny that explicitly granted to the government (state/federal).

Should it be?

1. They could, but this is unrealistic in the extreme. A ton of people who voted for weed in SD probably didn't feel strongly about it.

2. We take away people's rights all the time by voting for it (or not voting for it, as my state has heavily restricted my right to bear arms, which I note is actually in the constitution, unlike two of the three things you mentioned). I don't understand this point. Judges strike down things people vote for all the time is my point. If you want to talk about how our judicial system is out of control, I'm all ears, but picking and choosing things you want judges to strike down makes it seem like pretending we live in a democracy is even more of a farce than it already is.

3. I don't really care. If an amendment was on the ballot to legalize weed in my state, I'd (probably) vote for it, but I really don't have strong feelings about the issue at all, except disliking it personally and socially.

[New England Fire Squad]

Judges overturning things people voted for in the USA is so common that it usually doesn't even make headlines. I'm only 27, but I recall the vast majority of states voting against gay marriage, and the supreme court invalidating all of those votes. At the end of the day, most people in South Dakota probably don't really care. It's one of the most conservative states in the union, and voters there, whether or not they support legalization, won't be throwing out a Republican government for a Democrat one over this.

1) they could throw the governor out in a primary fashion and thus get a new republican.

2) the Supreme Court is an important check. You can't take away people's constitutional rights by voting for it. Be it gay marriage, freedom of speech, or the right to vote.

The right to smoke/sell weed is not protected by the constitution, nor is the power to deny that explicitly granted to the government (state/federal).

Should it be?

1) That's not a realistic scenario in South Dakota.

2) You can add or subtract constitutional rights via amendments, which requires votes by the states. It has happened 27 times.

US Congress should step up and pass the necessary legislation. An amendment isn't necessary.

I think talking about the US congress here is key. Not just about weed here; lately almost everything of note gets passed by Executive Orders- and everything striken down is done by judges. I'm not really sure what congress even does anymore.

[New England Fire Squad]

I understand that it is a technicality, it just seems like a bad approach to dealing with a democratic vote.

If the David Cameron govt had wanted to ignore the Brexit vote's result on a technicality, they could definitely have opposed it (as it wasn't legally binding) but it would have been political suicide.

That said, I don't know much about South Dakota (hence me asking for opinions here).

After reading this, I get where you're coming from much better. If SD had voted to secede from the union, and the governor fought against the result and stayed in office, I'd expect her to be recalled. Other issues (on a much smaller scaled than secession) could also inflame people to that point. An abortion ban, or maybe a serious reparations bill, or something else that people on both sides might be passionate about. Weed just isn't that - support for it is strong, but lethargic, and opposition is lesser and for the most part equally lethargic. Even people that strongly support it usually have a way to get it whether it's legal or not, so don't are about it to the point of a serious recall effort.

[orathaic]

Do you have recall powers in South Dakota?

I am readily able to discuss the issue of judges and their power, but as they usually aren't restricted by re-election fears or re-call, they are supposed to be above politics - as I believe the Supreme Court acted in the 2020 election - but heavily restricted to only decide on the letter of the law. And even then only when someone with cause brings a case... A judge can't just make a ruling on (say) the 2nd amendment or this weed proposal without someone taking the case.

For the state to take the case against a vote of its own people is fairly undemocratic IMHO (I forget whether that is what they did in this case, or did the governor simple support the case after someone else took it).

Like imagine an amendment to the US constitutional altering the 2nd amendment was passed, and then the white house took a case to the Supreme Court to undo it.

I suspect that would be divisive.

[MajorMitchell]

Thank God, I was worried about an invasive weed species like Salvation Jane or Cane Toads. Her Serene Imperiousness Indoors, my Adorable Fire Breathing MemSahib was priming her firethrower and looking towards her shiny Purdey double barrel shotgun with an eager anticipatory glint in her Medusa like eyes...

[orathaic]

On a related note; Apparently in Maine it is illegal to deliver weed, but it is legal to hire a psychic to 'fond' the weed you have lost and return it to you...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/0 ... customers/