Skip to main content

View Diary: 74% of Americans Against Obama's War on Pot (263 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That's easy to say (0+ / 0-)

    but can you cite a specific instance where the Executive has asserted the power to refuse to enforce a statute for this reason?

    •  speaking for President Obama . . . (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gooderservice

      regarding the enforcing of the Endangered Soecies Act . . .

      Tom Strickland, assistant Interior secretary for fish, wildlife and parks, acknowledged the growing backlog, but compared it to a list of schools that need repair.

      "We know what we need to do. We don't have the resources to do it all at once," he said.

      http://www.radicalhippie.com/...

      Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

      by Deward Hastings on Thu May 17, 2012 at 07:16:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not investigating alleged torture? (5+ / 0-)

      Since the Convention against Torture was ratified by Congress, it´s law. And an obligation to investigate alleged acts of torture is part of the Convention.

      "Looking forward, not backward" however isn´t a part of the Convention.

      •  I'm no expert on the laws governing treaties (0+ / 0-)

        but I do know that they don't have much to do with domestic criminal statutes.

        •  Torture is illegal under American law (6+ / 0-)

          So if you are right then he would be required to prosecute.  Ditto with the bankers fraud.

          There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

          by AoT on Thu May 17, 2012 at 08:49:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Uh no. (0+ / 0-)

            If the torture were carried out outside the US under military authority, military law would have jurisdiction. If the crime were committed in the US by military personel on military property, military law would still have jurisdiction.

            My point was that there are differing governing legal authorities for treaties and domestic crime. In general treaty obligations, like Federal statutes, are usually trumps. But treaties are the product of diplomacy and diplomacy is all about maintaining the prerogatives of the state regimes involved. That's why they constantly argue over what their obligations are.

            As for the question of fraud, it isn't clear to me that the actions that led to the economic collapse were actually illegal. I think they ought to have been but it appears that this was a case where the shenanigans of the corporados got way ahead of the existing law. Credit default swaps, for example, were perfectly legal. Completely insane from any view other than that of the profiteers but completely legal nonetheless.

            All of which simply points up the dysfunctional character of the current system.    

               

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site