President Obama on White House Weed Stance: "We're Supposed to Be Carrying Out Laws." Oh Is That a New Thing For This Administration?
The president's chosen not to enforce laws before, why not again?
ABC News is airing a Barbara Walters interview with President Obama tonight where the president finally responds to the legalization of marijuana in Washington and Colorado; the president indicated there were "bigger fish to fry" than small-time recreational users, but as Jacob Sullum pointed out last night the real issue is whether the federal government will pursue commercial marijuana growers and retailers. Marijuana is legal in Colorado and Washington, but getting it into the hands of smokers in those states does require someone somewhere to break a law or two. So the following quote from tonight's interview really stands out:
"This is a tough problem, because Congress has not yet changed the law," Obama said. "I head up the executive branch; we're supposed to be carrying out laws. And so what we're going to need to have is a conversation about, How do you reconcile a federal law that still says marijuana is a federal offense and state laws that say that it's legal?"
In the words of Nancy Pelosi, "are you serious?" President Obama has played fast and loose with the laws before, so long as they fit his political agenda. Even as immigration enforcement ramped up during his first term, this summer saw him selectively stop enforcement of the law to prevent losing support in a key demographic. An even better example is President Obama's approach to No Child Left Behind, also a law the executive branch is "supposed to be carrying out". Yet under the Obama Administration, schools in more than half the country have been waived from its requirements. Those waivers were requested by Democrats and Republicans alike, yet in not one state was No Child Left Behind rejected by popular referendum. In Washington and Colorado, voters rejected the federal war on marijuana. For a constitutional law professor this ought to be a no brainer.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Arbitrary and capricious means what?
What?
Man if I didn't absolutely know better, I would almost swear that guy has read the Constitution.
All the better to wipe is ass with.
Actually, it's not a tough problem, Mr. President. There's no way the government should have any authority to regulate state drug laws, so it's only a problem if you're willing to ignore the constitution.
Oh, wait.
Wickard v. Filburn...once again pissing me off.
That's 3 times this week...
But it's settled Constitutional case law. It can't be wrong. We can't just go throwing out precedent every time it troubles us.
Slime.
"... the real issue is whether the federal government will pursue commercial marijuana growers and
retailers. "
I think the big O answered any questions you might have about that.
See, if the President likes it, it's not illegal. I forget who said that. So shut the fuck up or Obama will indefinitely detain you with Junior-Hitler Harry Belafonte's blessing:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.co.....tor-video/
Shame, because I really like Belafonte's "SWEETHEART FROM VENEZUELA".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDrTj-PJz_o
Or course it also completely ignores the fact that marijuana can be rescheduled with nothing more than the stroke of a pen, and must be done by the EXECUTIVE BRANCH.
What a disingenuous pice of shit.
"Oh,Is That A New Thing For This Administration?"
Enforcing laws - NO
Ignoring laws it doesn't like - NO
Enforcing the Constitution - OH, GOD, YES!!
It shouldn't be all that hard for a constitutional scholar to figger out, no? Hint: If it doesn't cross a state boundary, you keep your nose out of it.
Hint: If it doesn't cross a state boundary, you keep your nose out of it.
You don't understand.
If you grow/build/whatever something at home, then you are having an effect on interstate commerce because if you had not done it yourself you may have purchased it, possibly from across state lines.
Behold the power of the commerce clause!
It allows the federal government to regulate absolutely anything without limits!