A state government doesn’t have ‘rights’ – only powers

Because both medical marijuana and pro abortion legislations support freedom of choice for the individual, so your example is not hypocritical at all. Not to say that the liberal camps are completely free of hypocrisy – far from it – but these examples are both wholly consistent with liberal ideals – support the state when it legislates in favour of personal freedom, and oppose it when it tries to restrict freedoms. Where’s the inconsistency?

Probably because “state’s rights” isn’t their primary concern regarding which laws they do and don’t support.

The War on Drugs is an expensive farce that is doing very little to reduce drug consumption, but is wasting a lot of money on putting basically harmless (if possibly self-destructive) people in jail for either voluntarily frying their own personal braincells, or enabling others to voluntarily fry their own personal braincells. So I, at least, am inclined to support any reasonable law that seeks to end the pointless “war” and deal with drugs on a more rational basis.

But, though I certainly do not consider abortion to be a good thing, I support every woman’s right to control her own body. So, yes, I would raise 9 kinds of hell if a state was trying to nullify Roe v. Wade.

And I would hold the same positions whether it was a state law trying to overturn or supersede a federal law, or a federal law trying to overturn or supersede a state law. Because the content of the law matters more to me than who’s making the law.

They do not. Democrats have always held it is a States right issue. And that is the law. It is only a Federal offense if you cross State lines to commit Murder. Or commit murder in one State and flee to another. Return home. Crossing the State line makes it a Federal offense. If you do not do that. You have broke no Federal law. And are only under State jurisdiction. For the crime. If it is a crime in that State. States rights issue here. On abortion. You can argue the same with drugs. If nothing came from out of State. In there manufacture. Fertilizer,hoe,seeds, everything from in State to grow,and manufacture. That has not been took to court yet. Make one good defense to beat Federal charges tho. Most children you can prove State of manufacture on. Wonder what the law would be there? If you could prove you impregnated her right on the State line. Dead center?

You have chosen a very poor example, for many reasons. First, California has NOT “nullified” federal law, nor can it do so. Federal law is very much alive. Second, marijuana can be regulated federally only because the US Supreme Court held that local growing and selling affects interstate commerce, a position which is certainly arguable. Abortion is permitted as one of the rights guaranteed under the US Constitution, and nobody claims that the US Constitution is not applicable to citizens of the United States.

You would be better off trying for a comparison of two things subject to the SAME kind of regulation: marijuana and guns, both of which can be regulated federally only because the US Supreme Court found that they affect interstate commerce. Why do conservatives believe in state’s rights when it comes to guns, and not for drugs? Conversely, why do liberals accept federal regulation of guns, but not medical marijuana? That is a clearer indication of how one’s personal goals affect one’s constitutional interpretation–and is shows that it works BOTH ways. If this is hypocrisy, then everybody is guilty.