What is Ted Cruz's position on marijuana anyway?
At the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Maryland [Feb. 26, 2015], Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) endorsed marijuana federalism during an exchange with Fox News talk show host Sean Hannity. "Look," Cruz said. "I actually think this is a great embodiment of what Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis called 'the laboratories of democracy.' If the citizens of Colorado decide they want to go down that road, that's their prerogative. I personally don't agree with it, but that's their right."But, about a year before that, at a Texas Public Policy Foundation conference, Cruz had criticized Obama for announcing that his administration wouldn't prosecute certain crimes. His criticism seemed to be mostly about not enforcing the laws that remain on the books:
You can go to Congress. You can get a conversation. You could get Democrats and Republicans who would say, "We ought to change our drug policy in some way," and you could have a real conversation. You could have hearings. You could look at the problem. You could discuss commonsense changes that maybe should happen or shouldn't happen. This president didn't do that. He just said, "The laws say one thing"—and mind you, these are criminal laws; these are laws that say if you do X, Y, and Z, you will go to prison. The president announced, "No, you won't."That's not inconsistent with saying the states can serve as laboratories, experimenting with different approaches to decriminalizing and regulating marijuana. I do see a problem with saying that citizens of a state, like Colorado, if they want to do this kind of policy experiment, have the "prerogative." A "prerogative" is "A prior, exclusive, or peculiar right or privilege." (OED definition.)
The federal law is the supreme law. Even though the President may decide to refrain from enforcing it, he's the one with the prerogative. It's a word used to refer to the power of kings. It speaks of priority. The states do not have that as long as the Controlled Substances Act outlaws marijuana. They're proceeding at the forbearance of the federal government.
Now, Cruz might be saying that, as President, he too would forbear, but would he work to change the federal law so that we can overcome the disorder of having the people in some of the states deeply involved in the commission of federal crimes?
ADDED: "Sanders proposes nixing marijuana from federal list of dangerous drugs."
पोस्ट्स
२८ टिप्पण्या:
Harwood the Hack
“Harwood did something extraordinary. He lied about Rubio’s tax plan in the exact same way not once but twice — once at the debate and once about two weeks before the debate. What made it extraordinary was that Harwood had apologized for that same lie the first time on Twitter on October 14 and then lied again Wednesday night as if he didn’t remember his own apology and correction.”
Interposition or nullification is still sedition.
Aren't you a law professor? A federal law isn't automatically "supreme law"!
"The federal law is the supreme law." True, when the law is constitutional. But that is an ever growing pipe dream.
The federal law is the supreme law.
Bullshit.
Professor - have you forwarded your post to the Democratic National Committee so that the can inform the debate moderators to ask that of Senator Cruz at the next debate? It looks like the establishment is going to need all the help they can get to keep marginalizing him. I mean, can you really see him as president of ALL the people?
False Grackle
"Even though the President may decide to refrain from enforcing it, he's the one with the prerogative."
Because it's just the way to "faithfully execute" his office, sure.
So does the president have the "prerogative" to "refrain from enforcing" any federal law? What and who gave him that prerogative? If he has it, why would we consider laws more than mere suggestions to the executive branch? Why wouldn't a future GOP president "refrain from enforcing," say, the tax laws?
There is a constitutional argument that federal jurisdiction is derivative of marijuana being illegal at the state level. Also, Congress has voted to deny funding for enforcement, so current policy does not rest on an Obama prerogative.
Ted has an audiographic memory....if you listen to his comeback at the moderators...he went in the order that they asked the candidates the "gotcha" questions...He can't lose a debate!!!
Ultimately, the Constitution depends on the people electing individuals of good will to office. If the individuals elected have other ideas, but they are not opposed and, if necessary, impeached and removed from office, the Constitution indeed becomes just a piece of old paper.
Hack moderator: Before we go to break, we're clearly not having that beer you mentioned..."
What an a$$HOLE.
I bet Harwood gives big bucks to the Clintons.
Harwood created the idea that Obama, who was unwilling to say what he would do about the Iraq war or illegal immigration, was "pragmatic".
All the candidates should have just responded to him they were being "pragmatic".
Christie's fantasy football comment was gold.
A president really shouldn't have discretion not to enforce a federal law unless he sincerely thinks the law is unconstitutional and therefore not valid.
Progressives don't seem to grasp that what I don't LIKE doesn't have to be illegal. Freedom is far more important, to me, than my personal comfort at every moment in my life. I loathe smoking but will oppose any bans on cigarettes. Don't own a gun, but few are more pro gun than I.
The federal law is the supreme law. Even though the President may decide to refrain from enforcing it, he's the one with the prerogative.
If a law can be safely ignored by the whims of ONE person --- how is it a law? And what's the difference in a banana republic and what we have?
If a President decided to just stop enforcing ALL federal laws...what then?
A president really shouldn't have discretion not to enforce a federal law unless he sincerely thinks the law is unconstitutional and therefore not valid.
Even then, no. If it's been passed and signed, then Obama is the exact same as Kim Davis...picking and choosing which laws he follows.
The president takes an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. What does that mean, damisek?
Use some cannabis and cut back on the vino.
We are a society with so many laws, many of which are contradictory, that none can avoid committing Three Felonies a Day. That is one problem of "enforcing the law." It is also one way that Obamacare and the political Justice Department is controlling doctors who don;t have time to find out all the regulations, that have the force of law, controlling their lives.
Even though the President may decide to refrain from enforcing it, he's the one with the prerogative. It's a word used to refer to the power of kings.
The President has no such prerogative. That's a word used to refer to the power of kings.
Cruz is Texan. Texans keep their snow, mountains, and drug-addled entertainment in Colorado, a favorite vacation spot for Texans.
Why live with the druggies when you can just visit them for parties?
Now you know why Cruz said that.
Wait a minute here. There was a story just a couple of days ago wherein a federal judge said that last year Congress passed and the President signed a law prohibiting the federal government from spending any money on prosecuting medical marijuana sellers when those sellers were in compliance with state laws.
That is effectively a repeal of at least part of the law, is it not? How can you accuse someone of a federal crime when the legislature itself has prohibited enforcement of the law that says something is a crime? The only sensible interpretation is that the previous criminal law has been superseded. You can't have it both ways.
This country has far to many drug laws;
far too many laws, period.
Thank you for your comments, DaMikeSC.
Or maybe Cruz was making a joke. That this stupid lefty might want some weed brownies.
Seriously, what an inane post.
Cruz's formulation is entirely accurate. If the citizens of Colorado change their laws so that the State of Colorado will no longer prosecute you- that is indeed their prerogative. As sovereign citizens.
True- the federal government can still prosecute you- under federal laws, but removing an entire class of offenses from the States power to prosecute is nothing to sneeze at!
I don't know what Cruz meant, but in my opinion it would be entirely appropriate for Pres. Cruz to propose that Congress amend the federal drug laws to lift the prohibition on marijuana purchase, sale, and use in states where that is legal under state law. Lifting prohibition on transportation of pot to such states might present some difficult problems, but if those could be worked out, I'd be fine with that, too.
We have already seen that if the President decides in his/her discretion what federal laws to enforce and what federal laws to ignore, this opens the door to all sorts of abuses.
Cruz criticizes Obama for unilaterally, and illegally, deciding not to enforce the law. I see no real problem with Cruz saying that if the Colorado Legislature wants to legalize marijuana, he'd tolerate that.
Especially since there's nothing in the Constitution that allows for Federal drug laws. Remember, it took a Constitutional Amendment to ban alcohol, or to remove the ban; I've never seen a Constitutional Amendment banning drugs. I don't think the Feds have ANY authority to ban booze. Or gambling. Or fantasy sports. In fact, about 95% of everything that the Federal government is illegal; or at least, is not authorized by one of the 18 "Enumerated Powers" of Article 1, Section 8.
And no, I do not believe that the "promote the general welfare" clause of the Preamble gives the Federal government any specific powers at all.
This is how they get him. He probably did pot at one time and this will be unearthed and he will be condemned as...something. hypocritical probably that's an evergreen. No need to confuse anyone with facts.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा