Please Don't Enforce My Law

|

New at Reason: Joe Biden doesn't want people getting the impression his weasel version of the RAVE act is easy to misinterpret. Zealous DEA agents are helping to clear up the confusion, which bothers Biden even more. Jacob Sullums tries to make sense of the senseless.

Advertisement

NEXT: Great Idea; Awful Timing

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.

  1. I think it is important to remember that prohibition was more rigorously enforced near its end. The war on drugs isnt anywhere near as popular as it used to be. The only thing we need fear is the harm reductionists, and the involuntary treatment groups. Clowns like Joe Biden are insuring that the WOD will end

  2. Maybe some of the Reason MJ smokers should go party up at Biden’s place, and then let him see how he likes it when his mansion is confiscated.

  3. I’ve always wanted to visit Delaware, and finally I have a reason…

  4. “Is there a worse breed of American citizen than those that are elected?”

    Yes there is: Those that elect them.

  5. My God. American politicians are truly disgusting. Is there a worse breed of American citizen than those that are elected? I’m starting to wonder.

  6. Sparky, beginning to wonder? I’m older now, but When I was a newly independent thinker, I used to say to people that I’m only prejudgedaced (obviously, I don’t know how to spell that word) against two groups of people, politicians and their wives. Now with so many women in elected positions I’ve changed it to just politicians. With the way our government has usurped our rights for the last, oh, say 227 years, just about anyone that wants to be an elected official is already predisposed to controlling us and as such is not qualified to be in the government. Disgusting, huh?

  7. When are we going to demand a law prohibiting the attachment of other legislation to a specific bill? Any legislation which cannot stand up on its own damn sure shouldn’t be snuck in on us.

  8. Sparky:
    “Suppose i was an idiot. And suppose i was a congressman. But i repeat myself.” Mark Twain

    i think its always been this way

  9. Jinks:
    “When are we going to demand a law prohibiting the attachment of other legislation to a specific bill? Any legislation which cannot stand up on its own damn sure shouldn’t be snuck in on us.”

    Agreed, does anyone here know if there has ever been any attempt to reform this practice? I have heard of efforts in the Senate to stop the equally annoying practice of filibustering, so that they can actually put bills to a vote.

  10. While I’d be up for getting rid of the ability to attach irrelevant riders that can’t be stripped from a bill when it goes to vote, what’s the problem with filibustering? It ensures that there’s a super-majority in favor of the legislation, which is a decent check against somewhat objectionable/questionable legislation, because a Senator in the minority will only burn the significant amount of political capital that a filibuster costs if he/she really thinks it’s worth it.

  11. Dingel:
    Fair enough. Just yesterday I think I made the same argument for super-majorities being more valid. BUt it still seems like a dirty procedural trick by a sore loser, who wants some sort of payoff democracy work. If you don’t like majority rule, then change the voting rules to require a supermajority to pass a bill.
    From the c-span congressional dictionary:
    “The term comes from the early 19th century Spanish and Portuguese pirates, “filibusteros”, who held ships hostage for ransom.”
    Is that the kind of senator we want?

  12. The sentence in my above post should read “wants some sort of payoff TO LET democracy work”. Sorry…should have previewed.

  13. Rex, I think you’ve hit that nail on the head. Less often does it seem that the filibuster is used against legislation that those filibustering find abhorrent on principle, but rather it’s just something they may not like, and are looking for a sweeter deal to let it go by, usually support for their crappy bill, not to get rid of the objectionable parts of the one being filibustered.

    Here’s my impression of Joe Biden: “No no, I didn’t mean for my draconian, ill-thought out law to actually be used! I just wanted to appear like I was a tough-on-crime and For-The-Children kind of politician!”

  14. Does any politician every consider the full ramifications of the legislation they propose and eventually get passed, especially through dirty backdoors such as attaching to popular bills?

    Also, why is it that most “for the children” bills are really “tough on adults” bills? A 1,000 years from now, historians will view this era as the time when laws had to be created to stop adults from regulary eating their young!

  15. “Now with so many women in elected positions I’ve changed it to just politicians.”

    Couldn’t we say politicians and the people they screw? Oh, wait, they would be all of us.

    Never mind.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.