• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Feds to issue new medical marijuana policy [edited]

Sweet, now we just need to get Medical Marijuana passed in Virginia.
 
Please read the rules for this forum. Title is supposed to match article linked.
 
Wait...
Wasn't GWB villified for using signing statements to justify selectively enforcing/executing the law?

How is this different?

Should Presidents just enforce the laws they like?
 
I went to Target yesterday and there was a guy outside asking for signatures. Here is how it went down.

Guy - "Help support California's largest cash crop".
Me - "What is California's largest cash crop?".
Guy - " It's not pineapples."
Me - "Ok, what is it then?"
Guy - "Marijuana" <he slightly braces for an attack>
Me - "Sure I'll sign. I'm all for bringing a few billion dollars to the state economy."
Guy - "Awesome."
 
Wait...
Wasn't GWB villified for using signing statements to justify selectively enforcing/executing the law?

How is this different?

Should Presidents just enforce the laws they like?

As they like? No. As reason dictates? Sure. Name the laws George Bush was vilified for and we'll see if he received unjust treatment.
 
An -utterly- subjective standard.

Subjective is determining that dogmatic application of the law's penalties will invariably result in its aim. Then again, everything is subjective, and the 'objective' is only the degree of realism within the subjective agent's perspective.

Anyway, an executive power's ability to enforce the law is contingent on its power to do so. Even before Mexico decriminalized possession of small amounts of drugs, standard policy was still not to pursue casual users because they did not possess the means to do both that and combat the cartels. If resources apportioned to the pursuit of users of medical marijuana are re-directed to cracking down on more organized and systematic criminal usages, or on more serious crimes altogether, then the decision is justifiable, and 'objectively reasoned', as it were. Since the U.S. is in debt, no such conservation of resources merits condemnation.

Now, about George Bush.
 
Last edited:
Subjective is determining that rigorous application of the law's penalties will result will invariably results in its aim. Then again, everything is subjective, and the objective is only the degree of realism within the subjective agent's perspective.
And thus, it boils down to "I am not enforcing the law because I dont like it".

Anyway, an executive power's ability to enforce the law is contingent on its power to do so.
Having a limited ability does not prevent an executive from enforcing the law to its full ability, or excuse him for deciding to not do so. In this case, the argument is not 'limited ability' but a simple choice to not enforce the law.
 
And thus, it boils down to "I am not enforcing the law because I dont like it".

I don't see how such an "and thus" can be derived from what I said.

Having a limited ability does not prevent an executive from enforcing the law to its full ability, or excuse him for deciding to not do so. In this case, the argument is not 'limited ability' but a simple choice to not enforce the law.

Unless otherwise specified or negotiated, the executive power reserves the right to execute the laws in its own style, without incurring any penalties.
 
The executive branch exists to enforce all of the law, not arbitrarily decide which law to enforce.

Personally, legalized medical marijuana is perfectly fine with me. But the law is what it is, and until it's changed, it's not a combo menu.
 
Welcome to being wrong. That's not how executive power works. And I mean that institutionally and legally, not just practically.
 
Last edited:
I don't see how such an "and thus" can be derived from what I said.
:confused:
The standard you suggest is subjective, and then you admit that everything is subjective.


Unless otherwise specified or negotiated, the executive power reserves the right to execute the laws in its own style.
Which is also NOT the issue here -- unless you want to argue that 'ignoring offenders who are doing something I think should not be illegal' is an 'enforcement style'.

The President doesnt decide what should or should or should not be illegal -- congress does that, passes a law to that effect, and then the President enforces it.

Oath of office:
"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."

A President selectively enforcing laws based on what he believes should/should not be legal is NOT faithfully executing the office of the President.
 
Welcome to being wrong. That's not how executive power works. And I mean that institutionally and legally, not just practically.
Glad you were there to open the door... but he (and I) are obviously in the wrong place...
 
The standard you suggest is subjective, and then you admit that everything is subjective.

Out of strict psychological necessity. No one can get outside their own head -- that's where our little Cartesian theater occurs, so to speak. There is no experience you can have that won't be processed totally subjectively. It is only when people begin scrutinizing their experiences more closely that they become 'objective' -- but only as a degree within their 100% subjectivity. But this abstruse philosophical detour it is not of immense importance.

Quote:
Unless otherwise specified or negotiated, the executive power reserves the right to execute the laws in its own style.
Which is also NOT the issue here -- unless you want to argue that 'ignoring offenders who are doing something I think should not be illegal' is an 'enforcement style'.

The President doesnt decide what should or should or should not be illegal -- congress does that, passes a law to that effect, and then the President enforces it.

Oath of office:

That would depend on how the law is written and the rigor of the opposition. The President hasn't interpreted the law incorrectly in his implementations until the Supreme Court says he has gone astray, and never before.

A President selectively enforcing laws based on what he believes should/should not be legal is NOT faithfully executing the office of the President.

That's not what this is about. This is about proper management of resources in order to execute a law to the most effective degree possible, and nothing else until proven in a court of law. Executive authority has all the right to manage legislative aims in its own style, partially because that is the only effective way to handle anything. If he was always deferring to the cues of the Congress, then he would never accomplish anything, because the Congress would misapprehend the magnitude of his means.
 
Last edited:
Out of strict psychological necessity.
And thus, a subjective standard.

No one can get outside their own head -- that's where our little Cartesian theater occurs, so to speak. There is no experience you can have that won't be processed totally subjectively. It is only when people begin scrutinizing their experiences more closely that they become 'objective' -- but only as a degree within their 100% subjectivity.
Doesnt matter how many agree with it -- it is still a subjective standard.

That would depend on how the law is written and the rigor of the opposition. The President hasn't interpreted the law incorrectly in his implementations until the Supreme Court says he has gone astray, and never before
Oh, I SEE...
So, until the court tells him to stop, its OK for the President to do what he wants.
:roll:

That's not what this is about. This is about proper management of resources in order to execute a law to the most effective degree possible, and nothing else until proven in a court of law
Oh, I SEE...
So, until a court tells him to stop, its OK for the President to do enforce whatever parts of a law he wants, and irngore whatever part he wants, based on some subjective standard.
:roll:

And lets be clear:
"It will not be a priority to use federal resources to prosecute patients with serious illnesses or their caregivers who are complying with state laws on medical marijuana
The basis for non-enforcement is The Obama's position on if the act should or should not be illegal, as it is tied to state laws that run counter to the federal law.

Executive authority has all the right to manage legislative aims in its own style, partially because that is the only effective way to handle anything.
If that were true, then there would be only one way of effectively handling anything.

If he was always deferring to the cues of the Congress...
HE doesnt defer anything -- the Constitution sets the standard here.
 
Last edited:
Welcome to being wrong. That's not how executive power works. And I mean that institutionally and legally, not just practically.

Preposterous.

If you're talking about, say, prosecutorial discretion, that's an entirely different thing.
 
And thus, a subjective standard.

Not a standard.

Doesnt matter how many agree with it -- it is still a subjective standard.

No, it is the only logically possible means of processing phenomena for human beings. It is not a standard for anything. "Everything is subjective," is not a standard, because nothing can be measured against an absolute. It is a necessary condition of existence.

Oh, I SEE...
So, until the court tells him to stop, its OK for the President to do what he wants.

That's one way of phrasing it, but it misrepresents the reality of the situation. The President probably won't be able to do anything if there isn't some stability in his policies and consistency between his endeavors and the aims of Congress, partially because the Congress won't pass laws on his agenda without cooperation, and also because the Supreme Court will always be on his case. This is all part of the mathematics of the checks and balances system of government. The president must always gravitate in certain parameters, no matter how liberal or conservative he is.

Oh, I SEE...
So, until a court tells him to stop, its OK for the President to do enforce whatever parts of a lwa he wants, and irngore whatever part he wants, based on some subjective standard.

Based on the law's purpose. All laws must enumerate their purpose in some part of the literature of their drafting. The president can't deviate from that. Obama can't just stop all prosecutions of anything marijuana related effective immediately, but he can apportion resources [time, money, and manpower] according to what merits the most attention. Usually bills also include specifications on how he should go about this, or such specifications already exist for bills of this type within prior judicial rulings, and he will have to incorporate that into his understanding before making a move. Since Obama is a lawyer and has lawyers for advisers, I'm sure he has thought things through before going through with the policy change so that he won't receive much trouble.

If that were true, then there would be only one way of effectively handling anything.

One of a broad category. The most optimal policy is rarely implemented because people don't know it or can't agree to it. However, you can get more or less close to it.

If he was always deferring to the cues of the Congress...
HE doesnt defer anything -- the Constitution sets the standard here.

Only in the most abstract sense. Constitutional standards have to be qualified, and have their qualifications revised, in federal branches of government. Rights like privacy, for example, have been qualified and revised multiple times in the Supreme Court.
 
Last edited:
No, it is the only logically possible means of processing phenomena for human beings. It is not a standard for anything. "Everything is subjective," is not a standard, because nothing can be measured against an absolute. It is a necessary condition of existence.

I totally agree with this. I find I am getting into debates with people who want to push objectivity as the only moral choice. I don't think it exists. Can you say a few words?

I am impressed that the tables are turned. You are a conservative in the position of defending the actions of Obama! LOL!
 
Not a standard.
No, it is the only logically possible means of processing phenomena for human beings. It is not a standard for anything. "Everything is subjective," is not a standard, because nothing can be measured against an absolute. It is a necessary condition of existence.
Nothing here has negated the argument that the decision to not efnorce the law, based on the position that the act in question shoudl not be illegal, is subjective.

That's one way of phrasing it, but it misrepresents the reality of the situation.
On the contrary -- it fully represents your position.
As such, it is absurd on its face.

Based on the law's purpose. All laws must enumerate their purpose in some part of the literature of their drafting. The president can't deviate from that.
Well then -- there's no excuse for not enforcing the law.
So...?

One of a broad category.
The most optimal policy is rarely implemented because people don't know it or can't agree to it. However, you can get more or less close to it.
You use the term "the only way".
There is only one "only way".

Only in the most abstract sense.
You mean only in the most direct sense, given that this is what the Constitution says.

Dont forget:
The basis for non-enforcement is The Obama's position on if the act should or should not be illegal, as it is tied to state laws that run contrary to the federal law.

Should/shoudl not be illegal is not a call the President gets to make.
 
Nothing here has negated the argument that the decision to not efnorce the law, based on the position that the act in question shoudl not be illegal, is subjective.

There has been no such argument. You are merely asserting it is the case. As it is, there is nothing Obama has done that is not legal under current Supreme Court understandings. Notice, not even George Bush was ever prosecuted for allegations that he disregarded the law.

You use the term "the only way".
There is only one "only way".

Only way to get to a place, yes. The place in question would be 'effectiveness'. But there are many degrees in effectiveness. Therefore, multiple places to be, multiple ways of getting to them.

I may only be able to get to the top floor of the Empire State Building by elevator, but I can move around the rooms on the floor in multiple ways.

Well then -- there's no excuse for not enforcing the law.
So...?

So, what? I already gave you an explanation. It didn't appear in your quote. The President has to gravitate within parameters. He is in a state of enforcing the law so long as he is in those parameters. The one who decides he is not in those parameters is the Supreme Court. Obama is not being reckless in this decision, and is not stepping outside the bounds established by his predecessors and upheld by the Supreme Court. I don't think there will be much a problem.

You mean only in the most direct sense, given that this is what the Constitution says.

Dont forget:
The basis for non-enforcement is The Obama's position on if the act should or should not be illegal, as it is tied to state laws that run contrary to the federal law.

Should/shoudl not be illegal is not a call the President gets to make.

Even if that is the reason, the president can make such a call, because relations with the states are part of the dynamic in his use of resources.

Everyone can make such calls, actually, if the Supreme Court determines it is within their rights to do so. Variously, it has given such agenda-setting powers to the branches of federal government and to the states.

I totally agree with this. I find I am getting into debates with people who want to push objectivity as the only moral choice. I don't think it exists. Can you say a few words?

Objectivity is fine. It is even essential in debates so as to achieve clarity, but it has to be understood as a mental process -- a particular style of analysis -- and not a condition. 'Being objective' just means looking more closely at the contents of your consciousness, analyzing them closely for details and disparities and relating your observations to other people whose presence you are also experiencing subjectively. No one can ever actually make contact directly with the "real world." We can't come into contact, mentally, with objects -- only impressions of those objects by way of our sensations.

I am impressed that the tables are turned. You are a conservative in the position of defending the actions of Obama! LOL!

I'm only a liberal in the United States. Anywhere else I would be classified a moderate, because I am not a proponent of classical liberalism [libertarianism] or communism.

If I ever criticized George Bush for such things, it would have been on grounds his movements lacked utility, not because I considered them illegal, at least not in American law. Accusations of illegality smack of hysteria and I use them sparingly -- hysteria is one way of losing your soul. Outside American law, I am somewhat indifferent, because while I respect the United Nations for some things, I only respect laws insofar as the powers behind them can mete out the penalties of breaching them. That said, international law still carries some weight, and I am disappointed in Bush's disregard of that.
 
Last edited:
There has been no such argument.
Sure there has.
To say otherwise it to simply show that you havent been paying attention.

As it is, there is nothing Obama has done that is not legal under current Supreme Court understandings. Notice, not even George Bush was ever prosecuted for allegations that he disregarded the law.
Red herring -- no one has asserted there is a illegality involved.
A failure to live up to th eoath of office, yes, but not an illegality.
A decision to decide for himself what is illegal or not, yes, but not an illegality.

Only way to get to a place, yes. The place in question would be 'effectiveness'. But there are many degrees in effectiveness. Therefore, multiple places to be, multiple ways of getting to them.
So them, The Obama's way is NOT the "only way". Thank you.

So, what? I already gave you an explanation.
I'm sorry -- you said that:

All laws must enumerate their purpose in some part of the literature of their drafting. The president can't deviate from that.

With the new policy to be announced, he IS deviating from that, by choosing to not enforce the law, any 'explanation' for that not withstanding.

YOU said "he can't deviate from that", and how you're trying to make excuses for him doing so.

Even if that is the reason, the president can make such a call, because relations with the states are part of the dynamic in his use of resources.
Wrong. CONGRESS -writes- the laws, the President -enforces- them.
In writing the laws, --Congress-- decides what is illegal and what is not, and then hands that declaration to the President to enforce. The President, the person that enforces, not writes the law, has NO say here (beying his veto).

And, your 'relations with the states' arguiment is utter BS, given that federal law is the law of the land, with all less-restrictive state laws inferior to same.

And so, we're back to the President sibjectively enforcing the law based on what HE thinks should be legal or illegal.

Its no different than the President refusing to enforce a federal 'assault weapon' ban in states that do not have laws that ban such weapons.
 
Back
Top Bottom