If you fly a US flag for the Fourth of July, think about what that means. You are celebrating the hard-fought freedoms of our country, and you are celebrating as a member citizen of the United States. Think about that for a moment, then read on. If a state chooses to ignore federal laws, or specifically to write law contrary to federal law, what precedent does that set?
The Supremacy Clause establishes that federal law generally takes precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions. With the recently passed Utah SB0057 “Utah Constitutional Sovereignty Act” our state plans to fight out in courts a concept of state’s rights that raises questions about the applicability of law and the right to govern citizens. A question that will certainly come up is the question of Sovereign Citizens, who will seek precedence that favors their stand as willfully excerpted from the laws of government. Their ideal is to enjoy the privileges of living in our democratic republic with its infrastructure and frameworks, but disregard their duties as citizens and abstain from legal recourse that are a consequence of their actions. If conservatives are truly a party of limited government, should their argument be that we are allowed to rule ourselves in true libertarian fashion? Or is their argument more simply “rules for thee and not for me”?
There are frequent tests of states rights. If we take the case of medical marijuana legislated at the state level for medicinal use, or for recreational use, this was favorably received by constituents as a move away from heavy-handed government overreach, specifically for the Controlled Substances Act, and DEA Drug Schedule that classifies marijuana as a Schedule 1 substance.
- There is substantial research which shows that marijuana is not addictive, and has beneficial properties.
- Drug companies have exemptions to sell marijuana derivatives as anti-seizure medication (ex: Epidiolex by Jazz Pharmaceuticals), and as a pain-reliever and anti-nausea medication for cancer patients.
- Allowing access to marijuana at the state level is pushing federal law to move in a just direction.
In the case of Title IX protections, conservative legislators are doing the opposite by attempting to take away citizen protections at the federal level. Title IX prohibits discrimination based on sex in education programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance. Utah wants to claim sovereignty for the purpose of discriminating against trans students, and they are not only willing to lose federal funding for schools, but additionally grant the State Attorney General to pursue “any appropriate legal action to challenge the federal directive on the basis of state sovereignty.” None of this benefits Utahns.
- Students and their families will unjustly face discriminatory practices.
- The state will suffer from the loss of funding for public education, federal grants and programs.
- Utahns will take up the burden of cost to fund expensive legal battles in the federal courts on whether or not states are allowed to willfully discriminate against a class of citizens.
There are fights that are worthy, as in the first case. What Utah legislators are doing in the second case is a slap in the face of its people. They are claiming that federal civil rights protections can be ignored, and states can invoke discriminatory laws to burden its constituents. They are effectively making the same argument that a Sovereign Citizen would make, but at the state level. “Rules for thee and not for me”.
Can a state simply write a law to say that its relationship to the federal government only applies as convenient to its legislature, that its willful participation in federal governance can be excerpted on a whim? If this is allowed, then the question becomes whether a county, municipality, city, or citizen claim the same right of sovereignty? Where is the rule of law when sovereignty can be claimed without repercussion?
In principle, laws are designed to protect, not punish its citizens. Many of the laws we have are hard fought – the freedoms of all our people as citizens, the right to vote, the right to not be discriminated against on the basis of our age, ancestry, color, disability, ethnicity, gender, gender identity or expression, HIV/AIDS status, military status, national origin, pregnancy, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, or veteran status.
Take time to celebrate on this day, but recognize that our federal laws, and our state’s membership in a union of states has a long history that we should be careful to defend.