4 ms·

Looking forward to another 4 more years of this "hope and change". For the record DOJ is directly under the President's control. You can't blame Republicans fo

Looking forward to another 4 more years of this "hope and change". For the record DOJ is directly under the President's control. You can't blame Republicans for this one. If we can't trust Obama to take rational positions on such clear cut issues, who can we trust?

r00fus 14y ago
You knew the fix was in when he failed to clean out the US Atty's - as most presidents do on inauguration, and put a slate of good, competent replacements in place. So you have Bushite US Attys, and an AG (and President) who have been hostile to State sanctioned MJ.
- rdl 14y ago
  Most of the USA and AUSA that I hate were actually appointed by Obama.
  - greenyoda 14y ago
    In fact, Carmen Ortiz, who prosecuted Aaron Swartz, was an Obama appointee (2009). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmen_Ortiz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmen_Ortiz
- hachiya 14y ago
  The US Attorney prosecuting the case is Benjamin Wagner, appointed by Obama, as stated in the article.
cloudwalking 14y ago
While I agree that pot should be legal, I don't think this is a clear-cut issue. The President is head of the Executive branch. It's his duty to enforce Congress's laws. Pot is illegal at the federal level (aka Congressional law). It's against the law to possess, sell, etc. So unfortunately the President is legally required to prosecute this. Now, given that, I am a bit disappointed this is happening. There are plenty of other more important things to prosecute more zealously. Especially given Obama's "bigger fish to fry" comment.
- rhizome 14y ago
  For better or worse, he can change the law with an Executive Order that will last the rest of his term.
- iandanforth 14y ago
  The President could, and should, say that the law is unconstitutionally broad. It would be a much more conservative reading of the constitution to say that Congress does not have the power to arbitrarily outlaw substances within any and all states. This is why it required a constitutional amendment to outlaw alcohol. Given a traditional legal precedent and a strict-interpretation court the President has both the grounds to deem certain provisions of the law unconstitutional and the belief that that would be upheld by the court. Those are the only two tests he needs to pass to refuse to enforce a portion or all of the law. Responsibility to enforce the laws of congress: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_5:_Caring_for_the_faithful_execution_of_the_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_State... Right to refuse to enforce un-constitutional provisions: http://www.justice.gov/olc/nonexcut.htm http://www.justice.gov/olc/nonexcut.htm History of the commerce clause (Or "FDR, how we miss your court packing"): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
  - jrs235 14y ago
    Correct. And if Congress members wish to "sign their retirement letters" by impeaching him over the matter, they have that check/tool in their pockets and at their disposal.
  - greenyoda 14y ago
    But if Obama claims the law prohibiting drugs is unconstitutionally broad and shouldn't be enforced, he couldn't justify prosecuting the Mexican drug cartels for selling drugs either. And I don't think he wants to go that far toward drug legalization, given what his position has been on this subject so far (he's waged the "war on drugs" as actively as his predecessors have).
- ajays 14y ago
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
betterunix 14y ago
We can, however, blame Obamacare. To be clear, I do actually support universal health care. The Obama administration, however, made a deal with the pharmaceutical company to win their support for the law, one that involved increased crackdowns on medical marijuana and illegal drug imports, and various other moves that benefited the pharmaceutical industry.

r00fus 14y ago

You knew the fix was in when he failed to clean out the US Atty's - as most presidents do on inauguration, and put a slate of good, competent replacements in place. So you have Bushite US Attys, and an AG (and President) who have been hostile to State sanctioned MJ.

rdl 14y ago
Most of the USA and AUSA that I hate were actually appointed by Obama.
- greenyoda 14y ago
  In fact, Carmen Ortiz, who prosecuted Aaron Swartz, was an Obama appointee (2009). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmen_Ortiz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmen_Ortiz
hachiya 14y ago
The US Attorney prosecuting the case is Benjamin Wagner, appointed by Obama, as stated in the article.

cloudwalking 14y ago

While I agree that pot should be legal, I don't think this is a clear-cut issue. The President is head of the Executive branch. It's his duty to enforce Congress's laws. Pot is illegal at the federal level (aka Congressional law). It's against the law to possess, sell, etc. So unfortunately the President is legally required to prosecute this. Now, given that, I am a bit disappointed this is happening. There are plenty of other more important things to prosecute more zealously. Especially given Obama's "bigger fish to fry" comment.

rhizome 14y ago
For better or worse, he can change the law with an Executive Order that will last the rest of his term.
iandanforth 14y ago
The President could, and should, say that the law is unconstitutionally broad. It would be a much more conservative reading of the constitution to say that Congress does not have the power to arbitrarily outlaw substances within any and all states. This is why it required a constitutional amendment to outlaw alcohol. Given a traditional legal precedent and a strict-interpretation court the President has both the grounds to deem certain provisions of the law unconstitutional and the belief that that would be upheld by the court. Those are the only two tests he needs to pass to refuse to enforce a portion or all of the law. Responsibility to enforce the laws of congress: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_5:_Caring_for_the_faithful_execution_of_the_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_State... Right to refuse to enforce un-constitutional provisions: http://www.justice.gov/olc/nonexcut.htm http://www.justice.gov/olc/nonexcut.htm History of the commerce clause (Or "FDR, how we miss your court packing"): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
- jrs235 14y ago
  Correct. And if Congress members wish to "sign their retirement letters" by impeaching him over the matter, they have that check/tool in their pockets and at their disposal.
- greenyoda 14y ago
  But if Obama claims the law prohibiting drugs is unconstitutionally broad and shouldn't be enforced, he couldn't justify prosecuting the Mexican drug cartels for selling drugs either. And I don't think he wants to go that far toward drug legalization, given what his position has been on this subject so far (he's waged the "war on drugs" as actively as his predecessors have).
ajays 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

betterunix 14y ago

We can, however, blame Obamacare. To be clear, I do actually support universal health care. The Obama administration, however, made a deal with the pharmaceutical company to win their support for the law, one that involved increased crackdowns on medical marijuana and illegal drug imports, and various other moves that benefited the pharmaceutical industry.