4 ms·

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 Congre

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
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. ...except when he decides not to defend a law[1] that he claims is unconstitutional. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act
alexqgb 14y ago
If you think the President is a robotic extension of Congressional will and obliged to enforce all laws as written, they you have failed to grasp the fundamental principle of divided government. As a matter of very explicit design, executive discretion is the primary check on wayward legislative power.

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

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. ...except when he decides not to defend a law[1] that he claims is unconstitutional. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

alexqgb 14y ago

If you think the President is a robotic extension of Congressional will and obliged to enforce all laws as written, they you have failed to grasp the fundamental principle of divided government. As a matter of very explicit design, executive discretion is the primary check on wayward legislative power.