Obama and marijuana
PT
pot prosecutions, in states which have legalized it for
medicinal use. And (seemingly) everyone applauds
such obvious good sense.
But... there's another issue pertinent here, unmentioned...
is anyone here bothered by this decision?
I expect lawyers, especially, would get it -
---
Paul T.
Deadrat
1acd74...@u13g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
It'll come to me. Now don't bogart that number.
hal
<ptane...@consultant.com> wrote:
>Recently the DoJ announced they won't pursue federal
>pot prosecutions, in states which have legalized it for
>medicinal use. And (seemingly) everyone applauds
>such obvious good sense.
>
>But... there's another issue pertinent here, unmentioned...
>is anyone here bothered by this decision?
no
>
>I expect lawyers, especially, would get it -
such as?
>
>---
>Paul T.
Naughtius
[Pffffssst]
WOW... MAN... Y'know... Like I had it just a minute ago... But then
i didn't... And then there's the WHOLE THING and all that an' the
WHOLE THING around the world and when it's like that MANnnn I just
can't DEAL with it when there's that THING and then there's Everbody
else's THINNG and y'know Everbody KNOWS the Thing but I dunno...
Naughtius "We Blew It..." Maximus
PT
> > Recently the DoJ announced they won't pursue federal
> > pot prosecutions, in states which have legalized it for
> > medicinal use. And (seemingly) everyone applauds
> > such obvious good sense.
>
> > But... there's another issue pertinent here, unmentioned...
> > is anyone here bothered by this decision?
>
> > I expect lawyers, especially, would get it -
>
hint: constitutional authority, separation of powers, rule of law
---
Paul T.
Deadrat
ed78cc...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
Nope. Still not doin' it for me.
The federal government has the constituional authority to enforce the rule
of (federal) drug laws, even in states where states have legalized the
drugs. Separation of powers has got nothin' to do with it, even though I
suspect you mean separate sovereignty under the federal system.
> ---
> Paul T.
>
PT
> >> > Recently the DoJ announced they won't pursue federal
> >> > pot prosecutions, in states which have legalized it for
> >> > medicinal use. And (seemingly) everyone applauds
> >> > such obvious good sense.
>
> >> > But... there's another issue pertinent here, unmentioned...
> >> > is anyone here bothered by this decision?
>
>
> Nope. Still not doin' it for me.
>
> The federal government has the constituional authority
> to enforce the rule of (federal) drug laws, even in states
> where states have legalized the drugs. Separation of
> powers has got nothin' to do with it, even though I
> suspect you mean separate sovereignty under the federal system.
The legislature legislates, the executive executes.
Since when does the executive have discretion
to arbitrarily choose which laws to enforce,
which programs to implement?
If the Congress wishes to amend the statutes
in this manner, they can do so.
Alarm bells should be ringing -
---
Paul T.
Wes Groleau
> Since when does the executive have discretion
> to arbitrarily choose which laws to enforce,
> which programs to implement?
Since 1789. Which is not to necessarily defend the current action.
On the other hand, something puzzles me. How can there be federal
regulation and state regulation of the same thing?
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people."
--
Wes Groleau
"What you see and hear depends a good deal on where you are standing;
it also depends on what kind of person you are."
-- C.S.Lewis
Deadrat
@news.eternal-september.org:
> PT wrote:
>> Since when does the executive have discretion
>> to arbitrarily choose which laws to enforce,
>> which programs to implement?
>
> Since 1789. Which is not to necessarily defend the current action.
>
> On the other hand, something puzzles me. How can there be federal
> regulation and state regulation of the same thing?
>
> "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
> prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
> or to the people."
Perhaps drawing a Venn diagram would help, but we're talking about powers
delegated to the feds but not prohibited to the states.
The feds get their delegation either explicitly from the Constitution
(e.g., counterfeiting) or indirectly through the "necessary and proper" and
the "regulation of interstate commerce" clauses of Article I.
Our absurd war on drugs becomes a federal issue via the commerce clause,
which has almost infinite elasticity. One exception is gun possession
(United States v. Lopez); another is rape. Once the feds have a solid
delegation of power, they are free to permit states to share the power or
prohibit them from exercising the power.
The feds don't preempt state drug laws. Otherwise, they'd be overwhelmed
with cases of personal use of small amounts of controlled substances.
A contrary example is immigration law, the enforcement of which the feds
arrogate to themselves.
Deadrat
news:8be93a1a-9b84-447d...@13g2000prl.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 3, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>> >> > Recently the DoJ announced they won't pursue federal
>> >> > pot prosecutions, in states which have legalized it for
>> >> > medicinal use. �And (seemingly) everyone applauds
>> >> > such obvious good sense.
>>
>> >> > But... �there's another issue pertinent �here, unmentioned...
>> >> > is anyone here bothered by this decision?
>>
>> > hint: �constitutional authority, separation of powers, rule of law
>>
>> Nope. �Still not doin' it for me.
>>
>> The federal government has the constituional authority
>> to enforce the rule of (federal) drug laws, even in states
>> where states have legalized the drugs. �Separation of
>> powers has got nothin' to do with it, even though I
>> suspect you mean separate sovereignty under the federal system.
>
> The legislature legislates, the executive executes.
> Since when does the executive have discretion
> to arbitrarily choose which laws to enforce,
> which programs to implement?
There are basically two kinds of actions that the executive can take,
ministerial and discretionary.
For an example of the former, consider Minnesota law that requires the
governor to sign a certificate of election for winning candidates for
federal office. This is a specific mandate of the Minnesota
constitution. In the recent Minnesota Senatorial race, once the
Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in favor of Al Franken, the governor had
no choice but to sign the certificate. Had he refused, the state
Supreme Court could have ordered him to.
Discretionary power is general, as in taking care to faithfully execute
the laws. Since in the case of prosecutions, it's impossible to
faithfully apply the law for every violation, the executive uses
prosecutorial discretiion to decide which cases to take to court. These
kinds of decisions are not reviewable by the judiciary.
> If the Congress wishes to amend the statutes in this manner, they can
> do so.
They are free to amend the statutes all they want, but if they don't like
the way the executive is exercising his discretionary authority, all they
can do is impeach him.
> Alarm bells should be ringing -
If you're hearing alarm bells inside your head, get medical attention.
None is ringing out here.
> Paul T.