3 ms·
Since at least 1970, when the Controlled Substances Act gave the executive branch of government the power to declare drugs illegal without involving Congress.
by betterunix 14y ago
Since at least 1970, when the Controlled Substances Act gave the executive branch of government the power to declare drugs illegal without involving Congress.
- pyre 14y agoCool, that applies in this situation, how?
- CamperBob2 14y agoInability to exercise abstract thinking is a big part of what got us into this mess. It's all well and good when an executive power grab results in an outcome that you agree with, after all.
- pyre 14y agoSomeone used a petition to the White House/President as an excuse to lament about needing to use the petition process to appeal to 'law-makers,' presumably referring to Congress. I pointed out that we're talking about the President here, who is not a law-maker. Referencing a specific ability the President has which might qualify him as a 'law-maker' is at best a factoid in this conversation, especially because it doesn't even apply to the petition that we are discussing. The President's ability to classify drugs has little to do with banning/allowing phone unlocking (and one would be hard-pressed to apply a general label of 'law-maker' to the President based on a single power, which might better reside with Congress). Also, where do I show a lack of abstract thinking? Where do I say that I agree with the President having such power? Are you assuming my response of, "Cool, but that's not what we are discussing here" is akin to, "I don't want to discuss this because I agree with it?" That would be a pretty huge leap to conclusions (if that's what you're reading into). TL;DR - The President does not fit the generic term "law-maker," except for (maybe) very specific instance(s), none (that I know) of which apply to this situation.