YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollectionsStates Rights

States Rights

March 24, 2001
The proposal to ban betting in Nevada on college sports [March 21] makes no sense. The same politicians who claim that legal gambling is somehow linked to point-shaving scandals on college campuses line their pockets with tobacco money and oppose any regulation or tax increases on tobacco despite its proven link to lung cancer and death. I should be allowed to decide whether I want to spend my money on snowboards, jet skis or sports bets in Nevada. What do I need a tax cut for if the government is just going to tell me how I can and cannot spend my hard-earned money?
November 26, 2002
The real news on Nov. 21 was "Global Warming to Sap the West's Water Needs, Study Finds," on the anticipated impact of global warming drastically limiting the state water supply in the coming decades. This matter, plus anticipated large population increases in the state, will be troublesome, to say the least. Better start thinking seriously about carrying capacity of the land, true costs of gasoline and other materials -- and the major public policy issues facing us. It's not fun, but we have to start somewhere.
September 4, 2003
All Southern Californians should be outraged at the Bush administration's plan to kill our pollution controls in this area (Aug. 31). Incredibly, in a "friend of the court" brief, these Republicans have interjected (at any cost -- your health and mine) their pro-business agenda in a state matter involving our clean air. Amazingly, it was the third time in August they tried to kill our long-standing successful clean-air efforts. Are Southern Californians paying attention? Some of us remember the Bush Republicans' campaign for less federal government and more states' rights.
September 1, 2000
Re "High Court Bars Pot Distribution for Medical Uses," Aug. 30: So much for the Supreme Court's belief in "states' rights," which is too often a euphemism for obstruction of federal civil rights protections. When a state takes a position to the left of the federal government's, the Rehnquist-Scalia court conveniently forgets about states' rights. No, I have never used marijuana. RUSSELL STONE Westchester I wonder what the Supreme Court justices see when a loved one is suffering the ravages of disease, and I wonder what they feel.
A sharply divided Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down a 1990 federal law that outlaws possession of a gun within 1,000 feet of a school. In a ruling with broad implications for constitutional law and with potentially far-reaching impact on domestic social policy, the high court ruled that the Gun-Free School Zones Act is an unconstitutional infringement on states' rights to regulate purely local activity.
June 11, 2003
As a recent law school graduate, I was somewhat surprised by the tenor of "Rehnquist Rules on His Terms" (June 8). It lauds U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist for sticking to his conservative ideals for more than half a century. However, in listing some of the more important moments in Rehnquist's tenure, the article makes just a scant mention of his participation in the Florida election controversy of 2000. By joining the majority in the Bush vs. Gore decision, Rehnquist abandoned his conservative ideals -- judicial restraint, respect for states' rights -- to help craft one of the shoddiest pieces of jurisprudence in American history.
Los Angeles Times Articles