Reference no: EM131634989

Over the last few years, states and the federal government have had a lot of conflict over such issues as same sex marriage, legalization of marijuana, and control of immigration. Washington and Colorado decriminalized possession of marijuana even though marijuana is illegal at the federal level. Supporters of same sex marriage were able to overturn laws against same sex marriage at the state level by getting their case to the Supreme Court.

The Arizona government, against the opposition of the federal government, passed SB 1070, which set strict guidelines for how law enforcement is supposed to deal with illegal immigrants. While Arizona argues that the federal government is not doing a good job of regulating immigration, the federal government has 100% responsibility for regulating immigration.

In federalism, state governments are solely in control of some issues (for example, education). On other issues the federal government is superior to the states and states are not supposed to pass laws which go against the federal government (for example, marijuana legalization).

Question:

1. Do you think that if a state wants to create policies which go against the policies of the federal government it should be allowed to do so? For example, should California be able to legalize marijuana even if the federal government and the majority of Americans don't want it legalized? Why or why not?

2. When, if ever, should states be able to make laws which go against the federal government? For example, should states be able to legalize or ban same sex marriage? If the federal government is unable to deal with immigration, should states be allowed to create their own laws like Arizona? Why or why not?