The Rule of Law Goes Up In Smoke: President’s Disregard for Federal Marijuana Laws Runs Counter to His Oath to Uphold the Constitution
I wish I were better at Photoshop. You’d see that instead of “Cheech & Chong,” it would be “Barry and Eric,” and the photos would be of the two of them. Anyway, use your imagination . . .
I have so many thoughts on Colorado’s new eco-tourism industry and the Obama administration’s response that it’s hard to keep them all straight, so here they are in corporate-esque bullet point format for ease of consumption.
- First and foremost is the utterly disgusting interview with Barbara Walters where Obama says, as if completely befuddled by the very concept of federalism, “How do you reconcile a federal law that still says marijuana is a federal offense and state laws that say that it’s legal?” suggesting that his hands were tied because a state had passed a law that conflicted with the federal law. Answer: It’s called the Supremacy Clause, dude. We fought that one out about 150 year ago. Surprised that you forgot about that one. Either Yale is doing a crappy job of teaching their future lawyers or Barry is just lying. (HINT: it’s a trick question – both are true).
- This is the same type of ill-planned change as gay marriage. Policy changes this big deserve to be discussed and debated in the legislative process, not brought about by legislative fiat or judicial activism. Indeed, this is just the latest in Obama’s uncompromising imperial presidency, routinely ignoring precedent and due process. Don’t be confused – it’s not “leadership,” it’s just “bullship.”
- Further, Attorney General Holder, after publishing a memo rationalizing the non-prosecution of federal drug laws in these states, is actively looking for ways to enable banks to finance marijuana growers and seller (keep in mind the Feds don’t even allow banks to finance payday lenders – but pot is ok). Simply amazing. Don’t bite, banks! And, for the rest of you, don’t invest in those pot sellers just yet. Come another administration, and an AG who actually will follow the law, everything could change. And change quickly. Remember, there’s at least a five year statute of limitations at play here.
- What does this mean for federal enforcement of drug laws outside Colorado? Won’t anyone drug dealer be able to cry “Selective enforcement!”?
- I’ve never called for anyone’s impeachment, but when a president consciously refuses to enforce a duly passed and constitutional law, what else do you need? These recent actions, far more clearly that lying about an affair, constitute an impeachable offense.
Unfortunately, this is the latest travesty of an administration that just doesn’t get it. Oh, wait, I think I understand it all now – they’re all high!!