A ballot question to enshrine Nevada’s abortion rights in the state constitution has met all of the requirements to appear in front of voters in November, the Nevada Secretary of State’s office announced Friday, and Democrats across the nation hope similar measures mobilize supporters on Election Day.

  • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    I agree more states should go this, but radical changes in laws aren’t so unusual. For example, marijuana possession can be legal in one state and a felony five minutes away.

    • gedaliyah@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Exactly why marijuana policy should be federalized. (Probably not through the courts)

      • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        It is federalized. Marijuana is illegal at the federal level.

        But one of the advantages of the split between state and federal laws is that states can experiment with decriminalization.

      • FireTower@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        Beyond the obvious constitution issues, federalizing every law makes it harder for the people of a state to adjust the laws of their state to fit their desires. Creating a less democratic society.

        • gedaliyah@lemmy.worldOPM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          Not every law, but there are some policies that create bad situation when they are illegal in some states but not others. Historical examples are slavery, prohibition, voting rights, marriage equality, and abortion.

          Slavery being legal in some states but not others led to the Civil War, prohibition led to mob wars, etc. States still have the power to legislate within the law, but setting federal limits is sometimes necessary so the States can remain United.

    • cheese_greater@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      There is a certain preferabillity to having things able to be decentralized enshrined like the way it has to proceed now. If a fascist gets in Office again, California et al can say let you enforce it and give you the finger and that will for the most part be the end of it

      Don’t get me wrong: people will fall thru the cracks and there will be blood, but this gentile gentlemen’s agreement bullshit has to stop. The legislatures need to send 'Pubs packing and fucking enshrine actualy damn rights to make them inalienable. The right and sensible thing needs to be the only thing selling and motivating pols to for their own survival do the needful.

      Whatever sense or legal rationale Row has furnishing it, it seems obvious in retrospect that Republicans play both the states snd federal rights game, so the States are on their own insulating themselves from the caprices of dissimilar populations that are significantly less representative of the country (as a whole) and also basically antithetical to the entire existence of their own specific state, culturally, geographically, economically, education-wise, the works…