mozartpc27 wrote:Apropos of nothing, but I find the DOJ's decision essentially to suspend enforcement of federal laws prohibiting the sale & distribution of marijuana in Colorado and Washington (and presumably any other state that decides it wants marijuana to be legal) to be a dangerous flouting of the rule of law. Either federal law counts for something, or it doesn't; if states can piss all over federal laws outlawing marijuana (however much I personally disagree with said laws), then they can piss all over laws that allow access to abortion, or (perhaps someday soon) obligate states to recognize gay marriage, or civil rights laws.

States should not be allowed to pick and choose which federal laws they'll obey as if from a menu to suit their political preferences, and the DOJ should not pick and choose which federal laws it will enforce based on the political preferences of the current administration. The states doing it is aggravating but expected when the supposed keeper of federal law, the DOJ, makes a mockery of the rule of law its existence is supposed to guarantee.

SK790 wrote:

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:Democrats did not filibuster, did not shut down the government. They put up a protest vote and did not demand that he get rid of something they previously lost on. There is a difference and you know that.

Government shut downs happen all the time, many of times at the hands of the Democrats. In fact, it's happened when Democrats controlled the House, Senate, and executive branch (list of shutdowns). What's your point that the situations were not identical?

yes, the democrats in the 80s were terrible. what does this have to do with 2013 again?

mozartpc27 wrote:I understand that argument, and it is the logical response in defense of the DOJ's position. I don't think my objection is so much to the actuality of the DOJ's decision not to emphasize enforcement of federal marijuana prohibitions in Colorado & Washington, but rather to their announcement that they intended to suspend enforcement. You don't want to allocate your resources to marijuana crime? Fine, if you quietly reassign agents to other cases and make no public comment.

But validating states that "go rogue" and openly defy federal laws by announcing that you will do nothing in particular to assert the primacy of federal law? That's an open invitation to South Dakota to outlaw abortion, to Mississippi to suspend the civil rights act, etc. I realize that the DOJ will not permit some of these things to go on, but they open themselves to a perfectly legitimate question in those cases: if the people of Washington & Colorado can essentially void federal laws they disagree with, why can't the people of any state do the same, regardless of the law they are voiding?

td11 wrote:so basically GOP is responsible for shutdown, but administration is to blame for selectively enforcing it

cshort wrote:

td11 wrote:so basically GOP is responsible for shutdown, but administration is to blame for selectively enforcing it to inflict MAXIMUM CARNAGE by CLOSING PARKS and MEMORIALS which might otherwise get vandalized

FYP

Werthless wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:I understand that argument, and it is the logical response in defense of the DOJ's position. I don't think my objection is so much to the actuality of the DOJ's decision not to emphasize enforcement of federal marijuana prohibitions in Colorado & Washington, but rather to their announcement that they intended to suspend enforcement. You don't want to allocate your resources to marijuana crime? Fine, if you quietly reassign agents to other cases and make no public comment.

But validating states that "go rogue" and openly defy federal laws by announcing that you will do nothing in particular to assert the primacy of federal law? That's an open invitation to South Dakota to outlaw abortion, to Mississippi to suspend the civil rights act, etc. I realize that the DOJ will not permit some of these things to go on, but they open themselves to a perfectly legitimate question in those cases: if the people of Washington & Colorado can essentially void federal laws they disagree with, why can't the people of any state do the same, regardless of the law they are voiding?

The executive branch cannot, according to the Constitution, decide which laws passed by Congress they choose to enforce.

This only matters if you care about following the Constitution over doing what you think is right.

mozartpc27 wrote:

Werthless wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:I understand that argument, and it is the logical response in defense of the DOJ's position. I don't think my objection is so much to the actuality of the DOJ's decision not to emphasize enforcement of federal marijuana prohibitions in Colorado & Washington, but rather to their announcement that they intended to suspend enforcement. You don't want to allocate your resources to marijuana crime? Fine, if you quietly reassign agents to other cases and make no public comment.

But validating states that "go rogue" and openly defy federal laws by announcing that you will do nothing in particular to assert the primacy of federal law? That's an open invitation to South Dakota to outlaw abortion, to Mississippi to suspend the civil rights act, etc. I realize that the DOJ will not permit some of these things to go on, but they open themselves to a perfectly legitimate question in those cases: if the people of Washington & Colorado can essentially void federal laws they disagree with, why can't the people of any state do the same, regardless of the law they are voiding?

The executive branch cannot, according to the Constitution, decide which laws passed by Congress they choose to enforce.

This only matters if you care about following the Constitution over doing what you think is right.

I agree that the letter-of-the-law requires equal enforcement of all laws on the books, but, in practice, we all know resources are limited and until unlimited ones are finally invented, there will always be a certain degree of "emphasis" involved (i.e., picking your battles, etc.)

Having said that, I don't think the DOJ should announce that it intends to waive enforcement of this or that law, particularly in reaction to a state's repudiation of a particular law. I think principle has to matter for something, and if you believe (as I do) that the federal government's laws take primacy over state laws, and that states are not free to do whatever they damn well please, you are obligated to lay the smack down against a state that decides to openly deft federal law, even if they are doing so on a point you may agree with (as I agree that marijuana should be legal).

I anticipate that a response to this would be that the only way any national politician would ever be willing to spend political capital on something ultimately as trivial as legalizing marijuana would be if the states had all but done so already and it became more a matter of repealing a blue law than repealing an actively enforced statute. Though this may be true, my feeling is: too bad.

TenuredVulture wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:

Werthless wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:I understand that argument, and it is the logical response in defense of the DOJ's position. I don't think my objection is so much to the actuality of the DOJ's decision not to emphasize enforcement of federal marijuana prohibitions in Colorado & Washington, but rather to their announcement that they intended to suspend enforcement. You don't want to allocate your resources to marijuana crime? Fine, if you quietly reassign agents to other cases and make no public comment.

But validating states that "go rogue" and openly defy federal laws by announcing that you will do nothing in particular to assert the primacy of federal law? That's an open invitation to South Dakota to outlaw abortion, to Mississippi to suspend the civil rights act, etc. I realize that the DOJ will not permit some of these things to go on, but they open themselves to a perfectly legitimate question in those cases: if the people of Washington & Colorado can essentially void federal laws they disagree with, why can't the people of any state do the same, regardless of the law they are voiding?

The executive branch cannot, according to the Constitution, decide which laws passed by Congress they choose to enforce.

This only matters if you care about following the Constitution over doing what you think is right.

I agree that the letter-of-the-law requires equal enforcement of all laws on the books, but, in practice, we all know resources are limited and until unlimited ones are finally invented, there will always be a certain degree of "emphasis" involved (i.e., picking your battles, etc.)

Having said that, I don't think the DOJ should announce that it intends to waive enforcement of this or that law, particularly in reaction to a state's repudiation of a particular law. I think principle has to matter for something, and if you believe (as I do) that the federal government's laws take primacy over state laws, and that states are not free to do whatever they damn well please, you are obligated to lay the smack down against a state that decides to openly deft federal law, even if they are doing so on a point you may agree with (as I agree that marijuana should be legal).

I anticipate that a response to this would be that the only way any national politician would ever be willing to spend political capital on something ultimately as trivial as legalizing marijuana would be if the states had all but done so already and it became more a matter of repealing a blue law than repealing an actively enforced statute. Though this may be true, my feeling is: too bad.

The main difference is in the two examples, abortion and voting rights, there is an identifiable person who has lost their civil rights or civil liberties. Failing to enforce marijuana laws does neither.

Werthless wrote:The whole "This is an unprecedented and evil move that YOUR party is doing" talk is annoying.

td11 wrote:so basically GOP is responsible for shutdown, but administration is to blame for enforcing it

Yesterday, Rand Paul tweeted that the solution to the debt ceiling crisis is for the United States to “cut up the credit card and balance our budget.”

Interesting, considering how since 2009, the budget has been balanced more rapidly than at any time in modern history. A congressman from Florida, Dennis Ross wrote yesterday, “For the first time since the Korean War, total federal spending has gone down for two years in a row.” Ross is a Republican who supports a the passage of a clean continuing resolution, and Politifact declared his statement to be unequivocally “TRUE.” Of course it is.

The deficit, specifically related to Paul’s call for a balanced budget, has declined by more than 50 percent and, by the end of the president’s second term, it will have dropped to around two percent of GDP. That’s superb especially considering the deficit was a record $1.4 trillion four years ago.

As for the debt, do we really need to do this dance again? Yes, the debt is high, continues to rise and long-term debt will eventually become problematic. But why is the current debt so high? Several things, according to CBPP and Bloomberg: two wars during the Bush years; the Bush tax cuts; the Great Recession; and the bailouts (TARP, the stimulus, etc). So if the GOP is this radically against long-term debt, why didn’t they speak up years ago? A question for the ages.