More issues on ballot than future of Big Bird

Maybe you've noticed there is an election coming up.

But beyond concerns over Big Bird and health care and who is paying enough taxes, there are a few other things that I'm wondering about.

Massachusetts will be voting on something called  "Question 2," also known as the “Death with Dignity” Initiative, which would establish a state statute by which physician-assisted death, also known as euthanasia, would be legal.

Oregon, Colorado and Washington all have ballot initiatives for the legalization of recreational marijuana consumption within those states.

And Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington state will have gay marriage proposals on their ballots.

I'm not going to debate the individual pros and cons of these initiatives.

What concerns me is if all these pass, much like the recent immigration laws passed by states like Arizona, Alabama, Georgia, and others, who will be responsible for enforcing what law?

What happens when state laws violate federal laws, or federal laws violate state laws? We've seen instances where a state says it will usurp federal authority to enforce federal immigration laws because the state doesn't believe the federal government will enforce its own laws; and then we see the federal authority say the states are acting without authority. Or states pass immigration laws, which the federal government then challenges in court, creating the argument over federal vs. state's rights.

And if that paragraph leaves you scratching your head ... that's kind of what these divergent opinions on "law" are causing me to do.

We could substitute almost any of the above laws for this, but let's look at the marriage issue.

In 1996, President Bill Clinton (a Democrat) signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) into law with a large bi-partisan majority in Congress approving the legislation. That act established that the United States government would recognize only the union of a man and a woman as marriage, and no state would be required to recognize a same-sex union performed in any other state.

Now, President Barack Obama (also a Democrat) has ordered the Attorney General of the United States not to defend DOMA in the Federal Courts. And in fact, President Obama and the party of Bill Clinton are actively promoting what that federal statue - which, by the way, still bears the full force of federal law - prohibits.

I bring up the fact that both Presidents Clinton and Obama are Democrats only to show how different in roughly 16 years time the Democratic party has become. The same President who signed DOMA into law has actively endorsed the President who refuses to uphold that law.

What about swearing to defend the Constitution and uphold the laws of the United States?

Let's consider another potential conflict: What happens if one of those states does indeed pass a law legalizing recreational use of marijuana? Will local police then ignore federal  drug laws? Could individual cities in those states' then pass their own laws making marijuana illegal, furthering the confusion over who is in charge?

And if a state refuses to recognize federal law, could the Federal government choose to declare marshall law in those states so the federal laws are enforced? I know that seems like a stretch in these circumstances, but isn't that what the Federal government is supposed to do when a state or community chooses to disregard Federal law - as in the case of Phenix City, Al, in the 1950s, and did sporadically throughout the South during the Civil Rights movement of the 1960?

Obviously I'm not a lawyer. Maybe there is a simple explanation for this. I know the "Supremacy Clause" of the Constitution says (Article VI) says: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. 

This seems to mean that any federal law trumps any conflicting state law.

That is, if the federal government is willing to back up its own laws.

Another thing to consider: what starts as a law at the state level very often eventually winds up becoming law at the national level. (Case in point: we often forget how a majority or near-majority of states had banned alcohol before prohibition became the law of the land in the 1920s).

We all know how different regions of the country are from each other, and certainly how different states can be. Sometimes you almost think you need a passport to go from one state to another.
Somewhere I remember reading a German philosopher who said, "Democracy requires of its citizens qualities that it cannot provide." I took that to mean that democracies may give us hope for having an educated, healthy, prosperous, and free society, but no government can provide the qualities of integrity, self-sacrifice, and personal responsibility required to make such a vision come true.

I know you may be reading this and getting all worked up over the law or the proposed law itself, but that's not my intent here.

My concern is confusion over the law - whatever the law is.

There is an election in November, but it is starting to look like it's a lot more than just about who will be the next President of the United States. Decisions made in individual states will say a lot about the character of America, of where America is going and what Americans believe.