Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  Maybe he has the authority and maybe he doesn't (0+ / 0-)

    If he does it will be specified in law. Can you cite the law?

    I don't have any idea what Pres. Obama's line is on this. I'm speaking for myself. I want to see what the law actually says. That is the pertinent issue.

    •  If he can manage to not arrest (10+ / 0-)

      bankers for fraud then I think he can manage to not arrest medical marijuana dispensaries.

      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 08:47:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's a damn good point. Really damn good. (0+ / 0-)

        Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

        by JTinDC on Thu May 17, 2012 at 08:49:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Well that would seem to make sense (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AoT

        but to quote Dickens "the law is an idiot and an ass." What seems equitable and just doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what the law allows. I think you already know this.

        I've been frank from the beginning of this thread in saying that I don't know enough about the applicable statutes to Judge what Pres. Obama can or cannot do. I've asked repeatedly for citations that would clarify the question. So far no ones been able to produce such although some, to their credit, have tried.

        I'm opposed to the War on Drugs period. I opposed it under Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and now Obama. If I were sure that the Pres. could stop it with the stroke of a pen I'd be down with that. But this is a question of what the law is, not what it ought to be. People  who want to personalize this to a question of Presidential prerogative have an obligation to know what they are talking about, legally speaking. Appeals to sentiment or "common sense" don't satisfy this obligation.

        •  I have never seen anything that says the (0+ / 0-)

          president or the department of justice has an obligation to prosecute any crimes.  The fact that he outright said that he had to prosecute is clearly wrong given his refusal to do anything.  Either that or he is breaking the law in those other cases.

          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 02:15:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The Presidential oath of office (0+ / 0-)

            obligates the President to enforce all statutes, that's why the President is sometimes referred to as the Chief Magistrate.

            •  The oath of office is as follows (0+ / 0-)

              "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."  With "so help me god" added at the end.  I don't see anything in the constitution that obligates him to enforce all statutes.

              If he does have that obligation then he also has the obligation to prosecute war crimes because those treaties are considered "the highest law of the land" according to the constitution.

              Whether the president has an actual legal obligation to prosecute he has either lied about it or is shirking that obligation in both banking and torture cases.

              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 03:06:29 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  My Bad (0+ / 0-)

                The obligation is enumerated among the duties of the President outlined in the Constitution. Hence it is covered by the affirmation to "preserve, protect and defend."

                Yes treaties are trumps but the interpretation of the treaties is always open to debate. Is the there an obligation to prosecute a war crime if the Government doesn't agree that the act in question is a war crime?

                •  Kind of? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  WB Reeves

                  Article 2 of the constitution says that "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."  But laws are weird and that doesn't necessarily mean he has to.

                  This source  which has generally been good seems to indicate that the president can advise the DoJ on what to do but can't order them to do something and have the right to be obeyed.  So he could theoretically suggest to Holder that he doesn't want the DoJ to prosecute medical marijuana cases. or he could suggest that he wants all the resources to go to that, but he can't just say "don't prosecute this or that" once he's chosen a Attorney General.

                  Again, if he has no choice but to go after people then he is shirking that obligation in a number of ways, specifically when it comes to torture treaties and banks.

                  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 03:45:25 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I already commented on the torture and (0+ / 0-)

                    banks questions but to reiterate the second: it isn't at all clear that anything the banks did was illegal. I don't like it but there it is.

                    •  Well, some of it clearly was (0+ / 0-)

                      given that there is a settlement happening.  More than that, not investigating is part of the problem.  If they don't have an obligation to investigate banks even with the appearance of fraud then they certainly have no obligation to investigate medical marijuana.

                      And you were incorrect on torture.  Torture is covered under treaties which we have signed, treaties that are held up by the constitution as the highest law of the land.

                      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 04:14:46 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Do the treaties in question (0+ / 0-)

                        obligate the US government to accept the authority of a foreign entity in the determination of whether a war crime has, in fact, been committed? Or does the US government retain the power to determine whether or not a particular act is subject to the treaty? If the US Government disputes the validity of the charge, does that constitute a violation as defined by the treaty? The issue isn't as straight forward as some imagine.

                        Is the settlement you're referring to civil or criminal? A settlement doesn't, in and of itself, imply criminality.  

                        •  Robo-signing is a criminal act (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          WB Reeves

                          specifically fraud.  The fact of the matter is that there have been a huge number of examples where people have shown some amount of proof that they or others were defrauded by large firms and there was no investigation.  Some may throw up their hand and declare that it's all so complicated that we may never know if they committed crimes, but that doesn't seem like it should be acceptable.

                          More over, the president specifically stated while running that he would not pursue medical marijuana dispensaries if they operated under state laws.  Explicitly.  More than once.

                          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 04:39:55 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  i agree that it shouldn't be acceptable (0+ / 0-)

                            but I have to point out that the robosigning was a result of the crash, not a cause.

                            I also agree that the Pres. should be called to account for any campaign pledge that he hasn't kept.

                          •  No, it was one of the causes, as far as I (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            WB Reeves

                            have read.  It is what allowed the banks to put all of the loans into the shitty bonds and CDOs or whatever they are called.  Without robosigning the huge amount of betting would never have happened.  The banks wouldn't have been able to slice up a bunch of shitty loans then rebundle them as a good investment.  That was what what caused such financial devastation once housing prices stopped rising and the shitty loans started defaulting.

                            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 05:58:51 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Thanks (0+ / 0-)

                            Apparently, I've misunderstood the train of events. I thought the robosigning was part of the foreclosure process issuing from the housing market collapse. I wasn't aware that it had anything to do with the practice of bundling mortgages since the mortgagee has no say over what the mortgage holder does with the mortgage. Looks like I have some reading up to do!

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (171)
  • Community (68)
  • Civil Rights (44)
  • Baltimore (42)
  • Elections (36)
  • Culture (35)
  • Bernie Sanders (34)
  • Texas (32)
  • Economy (31)
  • Law (27)
  • Environment (26)
  • Labor (25)
  • 2016 (24)
  • Hillary Clinton (22)
  • Education (22)
  • Barack Obama (21)
  • Rescued (21)
  • Politics (20)
  • Health Care (20)
  • Freddie Gray (20)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site