Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
Originally posted by: Patranus
Don't really care.
I am glad to see the federal government back off and let states what they want to do.
I however don't think that much will change. The federal law clearly states that marijuana is illegal and law enforcement will still enforce the law. When the next president comes into office everything might change so an investment in infrastructure would be stupid.
Not really sure what this does for the separation of powers.....if a president can just decide what laws can be enforced after those laws are passed by congress, what is the point of congress?
You make a good point here, In particular, the bolded...
I for one am glad there is some sanity approaching in regard to marijuana. Its been long overdue.
It is completely understandable that there is not sufficient time and resources for the Federal government to pursue every violation of law. But for the Executive Branch to decide as a policy that it isn't going to enforce certain laws - whether it be on medical marijuana, or regulation of the financial industry, or the Clean Air Act to certain industries is a constitutional matter. It amounts to an executive veto on laws passed by Congress long after the period that the Constitution allows a proposed law to be opposed by the Executive.
If the Obama Administration wishes to pursue this policy, Congress should pass a law to that effect. Obama should ask Congress to change the law. For reasons of separation of powers, and so the next President doesn't just unilaterally reverse the policy the instant he gets inaugurated. Although getting congress to "change" these laws is wishfull thinking. I can almost hear the "Soft on crime!"s from here. I want these laws to be changed by Congress and not just ignored, but it became obvious long ago that federal legislators are not up to dealing with this issue.
If the Executive decides not to apply the law to a whole set of activities as a blanket rule - or even in a wink wink nudge nudge sort of way - then it allows the executive to disregard the enforcement of laws at its convenience. If an Administration happens to like the coal industry, for example, should they be granted leeway not to apply the Clean Air Act to the worst polluters?
If the current law says that the federal government has to bust these marijuana sellers, what are they going to do? Pass another law that says the same thing, but also "but this time you can't ignore it!"? If the President has free reign in determing which laws are enforced, how does Congress override him?
I'm not sure where I stand on this issue. On one hand, the federal laws against intrastate marijuana use are clearly unconstitutional and hence invalid. On the other hand, the majority of federal law is unconstititonal and I find it silly that people only invoke constitutional arguments on a few pet issues.
So obviously it's a good thing that, in itself, the federal government is not going to be enforcing an unconstitutional law. On the other hand, if we freely allow the president to pick and choose the laws we enforce, that's way too much more given to the executive.
It's a shame that repealing laws is such a rarity in our system. We just keep building laws on top of laws, and ultimately we end up with less freedom and more government intrusion.
If a President can simply ignore the law, the what is the point of the Congressional veto override power? Say Congress passes a law against eating ice cream, the President vetos it, and then Congress overrides his veto. Congress wins, right? Not so fast, says the President. He directs the Justice Department not to enforce laws against ice cream.
Let's be a little more direct: when Bush issued signing statements saying he didn't feel bound to carry out certain laws, there was quite a chorus here (myself included) saying that the Constitution requires the President to follow the law. Now that a lot of people like the result of this decision by the Obama Administration, the concerns about the Constitution aren't nearly as great. So it sounds like the outrage depends on whose ox is being gored.
Facebook
Twitter