Obama's War on the Constitution

The president, who first campaigned on a claim to constitutional expertise, is now the document's biggest threat.

A physician’s expertise makes him capable of inflicting great harm, noted Plato a couple thousand years ago, and no one is better positioned to steal than a guard. So perhaps we should not be surprised that the most conspicuous foe of liberty and the Bill of Rights turns out to be a former professor of constitutional law.

As a general rule, politicians tend to whipsaw between two poles. Conservatives try to increase economic liberty but show less regard for civil liberties. Liberals care deeply about civil liberties while trying to restrict the economic kind.

But the Obama administration is remarkable for its degree of disdain for both.

The president’s principal first-term achievement was the passage of the Affordable Care Act. The law greatly increases government’s role in health care and includes an expansion of government power unprecedented in American history: a requirement that all citizens purchase a consumer good irrespective of their personal behavior.

The administration also has pressed relentlessly – and successfully – for tax hikes, which shift control over economic resources from private hands to government. It also has indulged a regulatory binge, which shifts control indirectly, by cranking out burdensome new rules at a rate far faster than the Bush administration ever did. (This holds true even if you count only “economically significant” rules – those costing $100 million or more – and rely only on administration-friendly accounts.)

The result: Government not only is taking more of your money, it increasingly is telling you how to spend what’s left. A recent study estimates the cost of regulation at nearly $15,000 per household. This means the three principal drains on the family checkbook, in order, are: (1) taxes, (2) housing, and (3) regulation. And Washington is working hard to move regulation into the second slot.

While trends like these drive conservatives nuts, they gladden liberal hearts. Yet liberals are not happy with the Obama administration these days – for exceptionally good reasons.

Most saliently, the Justice Department has been trolling through the phone records of reporters for the Associated Press and, even worse, has accused a reporter (Fox News’ James Rosen) of acting as an un-indicted co-conspirator in the unlawful leaking of classified materials. Rosen’s offense was to do what reporters are supposed to do: break a story. This, too, is unprecedented, and it goes too far even for Obama’s most knee-jerk defenders. The New York Times views the investigation as “threatening fundamental freedoms of the press.”

The Rosen matter alone would suffice to disqualify the administration from any Friends-of-the-First Amendment society. Yet it is only one of several such assaults. Others include the administration’s campaign, through its insistence on a contraception mandate underObamacare, against religious liberty, and the president’s suggestion after Citizens United that “we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process” to limit the free-speech rights of persons who incorporate their social organizations; and its thuggish targeting of its political opponents.

If the IRS’ treatment of tea-party groups were an isolated story, you could swallow the explanation that a few low-level bureaucrats went rogue. But that account does not explain why the EPA has been far more generous to freedom-of-information requests from liberal groups than from conservatives. Or why, shortly after the Obama campaign slimed Romney supporter Frank Vander Sloot as a disreputable fellow, he was audited three times – twice by the IRS and once by the Labor Department. Or why, after Texas resident CatherineEngelbrecht started a Tea Party group, she received scrutiny not just from the IRS but also from the FBI. And OSHA. And, just for good measure, the ATF. Or why the IRS took 17 months to respond to an initial tax-exempt status from the conservative Wyoming Policy Institute. Or why it shared confidential files from conservative groups with the liberalProPublica.  Or why. . .

Enough on the First Amendment. The president also has tried with considerable vigor to undermine the Second, and has succeeded in subverting the Fourth: Under Obama, who has gone to court to defend warrantless wiretaps he once condemned, warrantless “pen register” and “trap-and-trace” monitoring has soared to unprecedented heights.

In 2011 the president signed a reauthorization of the Patriot Act with just one regret: Congress approved an extension of only one year, while Obama wanted three. He signed into law a defense reauthorization bill allowing the indefinite detention, without charge, of American citizens, thereby gutting the principle of habeas corpus. Granted, he issued an executive order promising not to exercise that power. But the order does not constrain future presidents or, technically, even him.

From a civil-liberties perspective, Obama has carried forward nearly every one of the war-on-terror powers that led liberals to denounce George W. Bush as a goose-stepping fascist, and in fact has made many of them worse. When he retires from public life, perhaps he will return to teaching the Constitution. That should be much easier work – given how little of it there will be left.

This article originally appeared in the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Homple||

    But we might just as well leave Obama in office permanently because, as is often pointed out here, TEAM RED.

  • Virginian||

    The only part of the Constitution Team Red legitimately likes is the 2nd Amendment.

  • seguin||

    1 0. It's really sad that those are the two major choices.

  • seguin||

    1 vs. 0. Damn squirrels.

  • Aceeakel||

    Start working at home with Google! It's by-far the best job Ive had. Last Monday I got a new Alfa Romeo from bringing in $7778. I started this 9 months ago and practically straight away started making more than $83 per hour. I work through this link, www.Mojo50.com

  • Calidissident||

    And even then you have a bunch of Republican politicians that will cave (or nearly cave) because they want to be the "sane, reasonable, common-sense Republican that can get things done" that the liberal media will love

  • JWatts||

    Most Republicans are pretty happy with the 9th and 10th amendments.

    9 - Protects rights not enumerated in the constitution.

    10 - Limits the powers of the federal government to those delegated to it by the Constitution

  • Free Society||

    And the only parts that Team Blue takes seriously are the parts that have been grossly abused and taken out of context like any "living constitution" advocate will tell you. To them, the General Welfare clause and the Commerce Clause supersedes every other part of the constitution, because conveniently enough, they've invented their own meaning to those clauses.

  • Alyna_Cleo||

    Xavier. although Harold`s blog is impossible, last thursday I bought a gorgeous BMW 5-series from having made $6588 this munth and-also, $10,000 last munth. this is actually my favourite-work I've had. I began this 10-months ago and pretty much straight away was making more than $70 per/hr. I use this web-site,, Click Here

  • sarcasmic||

    That should be much easier work – given how little of it there will be left.

    Seven words. That's ll there is. Seven. Words.

    "General Welfare... necessary and proper... regulate commerce."

    That's it. The entire document.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Two, I should think;

    "Necessary...Regulate".

  • Pro Libertate||

    You amateurs. The key clause is "more perfect Union."

  • Paul.||

    "When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary"

  • Pro Libertate||

    That's the Declaration of the Pursuit of Happiness, silly.

  • Paul.||

    We're not using the Constitution anymore, so we have to look elsewhere for inspiration. Double silly on you.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I look to whatever Obama's last speech said for inspiration.

  • Libertymike||

    Does the text of the commerce clause provide that Congress shall have the power to regulate business conducted by and between businesses and individuals?

    "among the states" is not the same thing as "among the people".

  • sarcasmic||

    It means whatever they want it to mean because "fuck you that's why."

  • Libertymike||

    As long as the Top Men say so.

  • zafina502||

    Charlotte. I just agree... Chris`s report is neat, I just got a brand new Mini Cooper after having earned $7723 this - 4 weeks past and would you believe, ten grand last munth. it's by-far the most financially rewarding Ive ever done. I began this 3 months ago and pretty much immediately started bringing in minimum $70, per/hr. I use the details on this website.....grand4.com
    (Go to site and open "Home" for details)

  • Paul.||

    This is actually a good point-- it's been pointed out before indirectly, but this attacks it nicely.

    But do remember, "The right of the people" doesn't apply to "the people" when it reduces government power.

    "The people" means "the people" when it increases it. It's a simple formula, really.

  • sarcasmic||

    "The people" means "everyone but you."

  • Bill||

    When all business is between the gub'ment and the people then everything will be subject to their regulation. It's a feature, not a bug.

  • fish||

    This means the three principal drains on the family checkbook, in order, are: (1) taxes, (2) housing, and (3) regulation.

    Utter bullshit....I have it on good authority that the economy grows fastest when items 1 and 3 are high....well higher.....how high? I don't know but fucking higher than the Teathuglicans want them!

    /t o n y

  • Pro Libertate||

    I was surprised this weekend to see a custom Florida license plate with the slogan, "Support Homeownership For All" on it. I guess the realtors are pushing that, but it's like we've learned nothing at all from the bubble bursting.

  • Paul.||

    You've misinterpreted. It was a statement about eminent domain.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Or a clever denunciation of the Third Amendment.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Ah, I see. So "all" refers to the People, embodied in the government, further embodied in the God Emperor of Doom.

  • Rasilio||

    Oh please no.

    I can see it now, an individual mandate to purchase a home. But not just any home, one which meets minimum government standards for your family size, however not too nice of a house lest you incurr the "Cadillac Home" tax.

  • CE||

    That's okay. My house is more like a Buick.

  • Brandon||

    Hi, American. You can fuck right the hell off now.

  • Mint Berry Crunch||

    What an unfair oversimplification of modern liberalism.

    Liberals also care about the right to "marry who you love" - provided "who you love" means "somebody of the same gender," but not somebody to whom you're biologically related. Because that shit is just GROSS!

  • Pro Libertate||

    There is some truth to the notion that the Democrats are largely the Fornication Party. Birth control, abortion, gay marriage are pretty central issues with them. If that weren't the case, I think the left would've turned on Obama by now.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    I prefer to think of them as the Brave New World Party. You are allowed to distract yourself with whatever state-endorsed entertainments, pleasures and vices you like, so long as you leave all other power in the hands of Mustafa Mond and the other World Controllers.

  • Corneliusm||

    "He seems to think the reason Obama voters voted for Obama was for a "more transparent and accountable government." Get real."

    No, he says that many conservatives (and libertarians) voted for Obama (at least in 2008) because they were tired of the lack of transparency of the previous admin; the thinking was that infringements on civil liberties couldn't get any worse, especially under a candidate who seemed like a reasonable guy who was critical of the PATRIOT act, wiretaps, FOIA request-blocking, abuses of executive privilege, indefinite detention, cronyism, wars, Gitmo, federal expansion, et cetera.

    Can't fault them other than being naive not to realize that Obama would break every single one of those promises (and then some) to become unimaginably worse than Dubya. Even I had my doubts, but Obama has delivered change for the worse in nearly every regard, except maybe the reversal of DADT.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Only to the extent that fornication does not offend feminists. When it does then you get Dems writing sexual harassment guidelines that define asking someone out who is not interested as an infraction.

  • Mint Berry Crunch||

    OK, I'll tone down the sarcasm for a minute.

    I am criticizing the Dems here, but not in the way that a Pat Robertson type would. I support gay marriage, but the more I think about it, the more I feel that people who support SSM while opposing polygamy and consensual incest are actually worse than the people who don't want the definition of marriage expanded at all.

    If the Dems added a pro-polygamy plank to their platform, I'm sure National Review would freak out, but I'd respect them more. Granted, that probably wouldn't motivate me to actually vote for a Democrat, but it'd be a start.

    Same thing with abortion and prostitution. Liberals are FUCKING OBSESSED with abortion which, Gosnell notwithstanding, is mostly legal in this country. Meanwhile prostitution is banned nearly everywhere, including in blue states like the one I live in. But do Democrats care that consenting adults are getting arrested for what they do with "their bodies"? Not at all. They're too busy panicking at the idea that Sandra Fluke might not be able to afford her birth control.

  • Irish||

    I am criticizing the Dems here, but not in the way that a Pat Robertson type would. I support gay marriage, but the more I think about it, the more I feel that people who support SSM while opposing polygamy and consensual incest are actually worse than the people who don't want the definition of marriage expanded at all.

    Yes. The exact same arguments in favor of gay marriage work for polygamy. When you ask a liberal why polygamy shouldn't be legalized, you get the same excuses that conservatives give for why gay marriage shouldn't be legalized. It's unbelievable hypocrisy.

    Meanwhile prostitution is banned nearly everywhere, including in blue states like the one I live in. But do Democrats care that consenting adults are getting arrested for what they do with "their bodies"? Not at all. They're too busy panicking at the idea that Sandra Fluke might not be able to afford her birth control.

    That's because prostitutes don't consent to sex. They've been forced into prostitution by the evils of capitalism. Therefore, prostitution is rape because it's sex that results from coercive capitalism.

    Don't you know anything?

  • ||

    This. Theoretically violating a woman's rights by having sex with a prostitute is WAY worse than actually violating everyone's rights by forcing them to pay for Obamacare.

  • CE||

    Yes -- if people were guaranteed a "living wage" they wouldn't have to sell their bodies to survive.

  • Inigo M.||

    That's actually not true (about prostitutes being forced into sex). Yes, in some rare cases forced prostitution may exist, but that's like saying NO ONE should be allowed to work in a garment factory, regardless of how well they are paid, because SOME garment workers are in sweatshops. But do you mean to tell me that that even Elliot Spitzer's $5,000 per night call girl was being forced into it? That's ridiculous.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Not to mention, that Sandra Fluke could easily afford her birth control if we didn't have the DEA/Big Pharma unholy alliance making it as expensive as possible.

    -jcr

  • Inigo M.||

    Not to defend the Big Pharma lobby, but there's no question Fluke could afford birth control. All the big pharmacy chains have several different kinds of contraceptive pills on their $4 or $10 per month lists -- she could just have worked it out with her doc to prescribe one of those as a generic. If she wanted condoms, I'm sure they are handed out free right at her college health service (she was a law student). She was full of shit from the get-go. No way a 30-year-old grad student in law school could be that naive and unable to figure out such basic things. I'm 100% sure she was nothing more than a paid shill for the election campaign.

  • thom||

    Encouraging gays to marry promotes family creation and stability. It is the exact opposite of most Democratic policies. I've never figured out why the left is so about it (or the right so opposed).

  • RickC||

    What if the actually goal was the destruction of that bourgeois institution? At least amongst a portion of the SSM advocates?

    Read a posting a short while back at some lesbian femi-nazis' blog (might have been directed there by Instapundit) who was livid about the whole gay marriage thing because she thought it was a mistake in strategy, the end goal for true progressives being the destruction of marriage . . . period. Her belief that this end goal was decided way back there and she couldn't understand how so many gay folks had chosen to co-opt marriage instead.

  • Brandon||

    The only thing conservatives care about is outlawing abortion by any means necessary.

  • Mint Berry Crunch||

    Don't forget oppressing people of color through such sinister means as limiting affirmative action.

    Also thwarting sensible, common-sense gun control.

  • Irish||

    Don't forget oppressing people of color through such sinister means as limiting affirmative action.

    And through such evil initiatives as voter ID. Voter ID? More like 'I hate Negroes ID.'

  • Corneliusm||

    And through such evil initiatives as voter ID. Voter ID? More like 'I hate Negroes Wetbacks ID.'

    FTFY.

  • CE||

    AKA "The Keeping Poor People From Voting More Than Zero Times Act".

  • Libertarius||

    "Keep homeless bums and other indigent leftoids from voting more than once."

  • AuH20||

    Don't forget trying to legally form a union with more than one person. Love is only between two people!

  • Mickey Rat||

    Opposing foreign wars is not directly a civil liberties issue, and where do liberals oppose the drug war as concept rather than oppose it in the case of their drug of choice?

  • Drake||

    Civil Liberties went out the window for the Democrats as soon as Obama was elected.

    You can't have a giant intrusive government when all the peasants have "rights".

    Seems like more conservatives started reading the Bill of Rights about the same time and liked what they saw. It will be interesting to see if they still like civil liberties when they take over in a few years.

  • CE||

    Even those liberals don't oppose foreign wars of choice. They want to "intervene" in Libya, and Rwanda, and anywhere else Team Blue wants to intervene, because human rights. But they don't want to intervene anywhere Big Oil wants to intervene.

  • Inigo M.||

    I don't see opposing foreign wars of choice as a liberal issue. It can be equally a conservative position. Except believe the of the US should be as global cop, many paleo-conservatives feel that the US should steer clear of most foreign conflicts. For that matter, quite a few liberals seem to be all for getting the US military involved in places like Libya, Syria, Darfur, etc.

  • Calidissident||

    True for most liberals these days, although conservatives haven't exactly shown much regard for economic liberty when in office either

  • DarrenM||

    I think it's more a matter of what the parties' corresponding constituencies are willing to allow elected officials of their party to get away with. I see Democratic voters being more accepting of their team's BS than Republican voters are.

  • Rasilio||

    Yes and the only economic liberty the Conservatives care for is the "right" of big businesses to make a profit.

  • DarrenM||

    Yes. Conservatives are all for allowing any business (not just larger ones) to make a profit. They are also for allowing them to fail. So, you don't think anyone has a right to make a profit? People should just work their asses off for your personal edification?

  • DarrenM||

    Correction. Not 'right', but opportunity. It's still the height of idiocy to suggest anyone thinks 'big business' has a 'right' to a profit. In practice, Democrats would be more likely to invent a 'right' to make a profit than Republicans. It's kind of like the 'right' to a 'living wage', but for corporations.

  • Rasilio||

    Actually you seem to have missed the point of my putting the word right in quotes.

    The point I was getting at was the Republican parties essentially Mercantilist policies designed to heavily favor large businesses at the expense of small businesses and individual.

    To say that the Republican party as a whole believes in Free Markets is just as far off as saying that the Democratic party does.

  • Libertymike||

    Obama has "expertise" in constitutional law?

    Like he could go toe-to-toe with Tom Woods or Butler Shaffer or Ron Paul or Lew Rockwell or Thomas DiLorenzo or Andrew Napolitano.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Well, it does say "who first campaigned on a claim to constitutional expertise".

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Emphasis on "claim" - ha!

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "So perhaps we should not be surprised that the most conspicuous foe of liberty and the Bill of Rights turns out to be a former professor of constitutional law."

    Wilson was a poly sci professor who wrote extensively about the US constitutional system and how it should be "improved".

    Clinton taught con law - and one of his judicial appointments was a legal activist who put feminist ideas into the constitution (and Clinton himself got sued under a feminist constitutional theory for sexually harassing a subordinate).

    I'm trying to think of other examples. I suppose I should mention Jefferson founding a university. I don't think he taught there, though, but he worked to expel unruly students.

    Eisenhower was president of Columbia. But Wikipedia says: "The biographer Travis Beal Jacobs also suggests that the alienation of the Columbia faculty contributed to sharp intellectual criticism of him for many years."

    It seems that presidents who actually taught university students don't have as good a record as those who were exclusively administrators (Wilson was both).

    Other examples?

  • Pro Libertate||

    I still object to Obama being characterized as a constitutional scholar. Left, right, or indifferent, in academic settings, you usually have to be something more than an adjunct to be considered a scholar. Publishing is pretty central to that.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    But he wrote two books in his field of expertise - himself.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Considering that he views himself as supplanting the Constitution, there's some truth to that.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "Je suis la constitution."

  • Lord Humungus||

    let's talk about me.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Does hiring a ghost writer count?

    -jcr

  • jace||

    I think there's some Ayers in the statement.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    I still object to Obama being characterized as a constitutional scholar. Left, right, or indifferent, in academic settings, you usually have to be something more than an adjunct to be considered a scholar.

    That, and lefties claiming that he's a "student of history." What proof of this has ever been offered? Seriously, anyone making this claim needs to be chokeslammed through a concrete sidewalk.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    He's no student of history. Communistic/left-wing drivel maybe but not human history. It shows.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "That, and lefties claiming that he's a "student of history"

    Yeah the prez is a real student of history all right.

    That's why he claimed that Emporor Hirohito signed the WW2 Japanese surrender on the battleship Missouri in Tokyo bay.

  • Inigo M.||

    Well, he's definitely a student of American history! How else do you explain his esoteric knowledge of those mysterious 8 extra states? I bet not even most scholars of US history were aware of those. Those were some serious scholarly chops he demonstrated there!

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Who could forget "corps-men?"

    Tony maybe.

  • AuH20||

    I actually respect Ginsburg as a legal mind a lot, if for no other reason than she argued in front of the court a shit ton of times before being put on the bench and she was highly successful in challenging sex-discrimination laws with a rather brilliant legal strategy (basically by targeting when they hurt men; one of the cases she argued was an Oklahoma law allowing 18 year old girls to buy booze but guys had to wait till 21)

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    My snarky point was that Clinton got hoisted by his own petard - it was Ginsburgesque under which Paula Jones was able to sue Clinton (if Clinton had been a private employer, he would have been protected by a statute of limitations, but constitutional cases have a more generous SoL).

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Ginsburgesque constitutional theory

  • Brandon||

    Because I just stumbled across this. MSN actually publishes this garbage, using the words "study" and "poisoned" in the headline:

    http://healthyliving.msn.com/p.....dy-finds-1

    Operative paragraph: Children recover quickly in most cases, Wang said. "They don't need more than a day or two of hospitalization," he said. "There were no deaths or lasting side effects."

    But don't let that stop you from being afraid of the boogeyman!

  • Pro Libertate||

    "We really shook the pillars of heaven, didn't we, Wang?"

  • tmcmurra@gmail.com||

    +1 for the Big Trouble in Little China reference!

  • BakedPenguin||

    Fuck off, dogshit.

  • Brandon||

    The use of the word "study" is inaccurate, and the use of the word "poisoned" is inaccurate. So the entire headline on which the article is based is inaccurate. But other than that, no, nothing wrong at all. Keep slobbing that authority knob, American.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Wang? The guy from Sixteen Candles?

  • Gadianton||

    So, tomorrow they'll publish the study which shows how many kids the same age got alcohol or nicotine poisoning from getting into the medicine cabinet and finding the cough syrup or the nicotine gum. Right? They will, won't they?

  • Spartacus||

    Why wait until tomorrow?

    Since I have zero confidence that they will do any such thing, here's one study.

  • CE||

    Time to schedule some more "Well Child Checkups" then, and rescue more kids from their parents.

  • eyeroller||

    But the Obama administration is remarkable for its degree of disdain for both.

    Yes, incredibly remarkable! Why, I can't think of any other administration in the last twelve years that showed a huge disdain for both.

  • Brandon||

    But, but, but BUSH!!!!!!

  • ||

    BUSH DID IT TOO!!!! Pay no attention to that fact that Obama is even worse!

  • Brian D||

    And however bad Obama might be (and I'm not even saying he's been bad, but going with the assumption) I'm sure McCain and Romney would have been EVEN WORSE!!!one!1!

  • Killazontherun||

    Well, McCain actually could have been. That is one dumb motherfucker. Look where he spent this past weekend.

  • DarrenM||

    With a Democratic Senate and House? I don't think so.

  • Inigo M.||

    No, no, he's not worse! You are only saying that because you don't like the fact that he's black. Let's face it, any criticism of his policies must be based in racism. /sarc/

  • Jordan||

    But the Obama administration is remarkable for its degree of disdain for both.

    You apparently missed the bolded part.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    From a civil-liberties perspective, Obama has carried forward nearly every one of the war-on-terror powers that led liberals to denounce George W. Bush as a goose-stepping fascist, and in fact has made many of them worse.

    This analysis is old news. The Reasonids and commentariat declared Obama to be Bush's third term awhile ago. Everything progressives hated about Bush, Obama has done double of, but they still love him, which means it's not the policies they oppose, but the person carrying them out.

    And TEAM rules over all.

  • Concerned Citizen||

    I can't help but notice, that those who defend abortion have already been born.

    RR

  • thom||

    And no one who opposes murder has ever been murdered! Hypocrisy!

  • sarcasmic||

    The hard drugs represent the large majority of the drug market.

    No they don't. They're a fraction compared to marijuana. Make it legal, and I guarantee that "hard" drug use would go down, simply because finding a dealer would no longer be as easy as finding a marijuana dealer who might know someone.

  • Irish||

    What's that prove? He said that the market for marijuana was larger. All you've shown is that less than half of ARRESTS were for pot.

    There are probably more arrests for hard drugs because hard drug use tends to be more conspicuous than people hanging out and smoking weed.

  • sarcasmic||

    There are more arrests for hard drugs because, while marijuana possession is a misdemeanor or less in most places, even a tiny amount of a hard drug is a felony. The do love felony arrests. Makes it look like they're hunting down murderers, rapists and other dangerous criminals, when in reality they're just getting their jollies off beating up harmless junkies and crackheads.

  • Bill||

    Yes, they will often let people go with a warning for marijuana, or possible ignore them if they are not in a public spot or bothering anyone.

  • Drake||

    I suspect that Liberals don't really care about drugs either way. But seeing militarized federal police agencies stomping the shit out of the disobedient gives them a really warm special feeling.

  • thom||

    This. The right opposes marijuana because they think it actually is bad. The left opposes marijuana because the government says you can't smoke it and your duty as a citizen is to obey.

  • Calidissident||

    I think most people of all political persuasions (except libertarian) are against legalizing hard drugs. That said, if you polled people, you'd probably see a somewhat larger percentage of liberals supporting it than conservatives, though still the minority of that group by a large margin

  • CE||

    And how many Democratic politicians have come out publicly in favor of even the most watered down pot-only legalization? Very, very few.

  • Calidissident||

    True. Probably more than Republicans, but Democratic politicians are definitely a lot less supportive of marijuana legalization than the liberal base is

  • sulphurbottom||

    They all suck. Every last one of 'em. The only hope for fans of freedom (and I mean real freedom) is gridlock all the way down.

  • John Galt||

    Liberals care deeply about civil liberties while trying to restrict the economic kind.

    That's not even close to the truth. So called "Liberals" worship the state they demand to control, while despising all liberties social, economic and otherwise outside those very few their cult has targeted believing they will help them achieve control of the state.

  • CE||

    Wait -- Republicans maintaining spending at 18-20 percent of GDP is "trying to increase economic liberty"? And Democrats doing nothing to repeal the Patriot Act or stop warrantless wiretaps is "caring deeply about civil liberties"?

    In that case, I'm sure glad they're not showing "blatant disregard" for our liberties!!!

  • melissabutler350||

    my roomate's mother makes $84/hour on the internet. She has been out of a job for 9 months but last month her payment was $14816 just working on the internet for a few hours. Read more on this site... http://www.Taz1.com

  • Inigo M.||

    What does she look like?

  • barbararose44||

    my best friend's mother makes $78 every hour on the laptop. She has been out of a job for six months but last month her paycheck was $19742 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more here... http://www.Taz1.com

  • mgd||

    Don't you mean "on top of laps"?

  • Mike Shearn||

    Who knows more about safes than a safecracker?

  • ||

    Hinkle: Can you explain how you can write about Obama's undermining and subversion of the Constitution without even once alluding, ever so circumspectly, to Obama's indisputable violation of the eligibility clause of the Second Amendment? How is it possible? Don't you have some obligation to your readers to even hint at the most serious and repeated violation of the Constitution since the Civil War? I know you are not alone in this self imposed Conservative Media censorship, but you must know that we have not seen this kind of fear-ridden Conservative media capitulation since the pre-World War II German and Italian press derelictions. Some company to be in, isn't it?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement