• 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!

Jeff Sessions Reinvigorates the Drug War

Dittohead not! said:
And what will happen now that Eric Holder is no longer the attorney general? Will the Trump administration go into the states that have legalized marijuana and start arresting people under federal law? If that happens, it will certainly become a state's rights issue.

When some of the states wanted to continue to legalize slavery after the federal government had, by executive order no less, outlawed it, that caused a bit of unrest as well.

When San Francisco declared itself a "sanctuary city" for illegals when the feds wanted to crack down on illegal immigration, that raised similar issues: Just who is in charge? Federal laws supersede state and local laws, and therefore, sanctuary cities are illegal. Similarly, legalized pot is still illegal. The underlying issue is whether the US is a single nation, or a federation of smaller states.
Click to expand...

They've done it in the past - Holder's action was just a temporary moratorium - and they'll do it again. Federal agents have been enforcing Federal drug law in the states for decades. No one has raised a successful 10th amendment challenge. Federal law enforced by federal agents is not a 10th amendment issue. What is a 10th amendment issue is if the federal government demands that the states enforce federal law. That's a problem and SC has said it violates the 10th amendment.
 
Gaius46 said:
They've done it in the past - Holder's action was just a temporary moratorium - and they'll do it again. Federal agents have been enforcing Federal drug law in the states for decades. No one has raised a successful 10th amendment challenge. Federal law enforced by federal agents is not a 10th amendment issue. What is a 10th amendment issue is if the federal government demands that the states enforce federal law. That's a problem and SC has said it violates the 10th amendment.
Click to expand...

and if the feds decide to enforce federal pot laws in Colorado, what do you think will happen then?
 
Dittohead not! said:
and if the feds decide to enforce federal pot laws in Colorado, what do you think will happen then?
Click to expand...

Not a damn thing of consequence. Some people would complain. The state might make some noise but legally nothing would happen because nothing can.
 
Gaius46 said:
Not a damn thing of consequence. Some people would complain. The state might make some noise but legally nothing would happen because nothing can.
Click to expand...

because federal law supersedes state law.

I think there would be more than a few people complaining, but, in the end, the feds would prevail. States rights are a thing of the past.
 
Dittohead not! said:
because federal law supersedes state law.

I think there would be more than a few people complaining, but, in the end, the feds would prevail. States rights are a thing of the past.
Click to expand...

Oh man we are back to square 1.

Let me ask you a question. If the Feds amended the Controlled Substance Act and removed all mention of marijuana - making it legal under Federal law - would any State law making marijuana illegal automatically be invalidated? Would the states have to make marijuana legal because the Feds did?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Uh...a city...cannot be "illegal", whateverthehell that means.
Click to expand...

All cities in the state of Texas declared as "sanctuary cities" by the Governor/State Legislature are subject to significant economic punishment for protecting illegal immigrants - so it's illegal to be a sanctuary city.
 
Gaius46 said:
Oh man we are back to square 1.

Let me ask you a question. If the Feds amended the Controlled Substance Act and removed all mention of marijuana - making it legal under Federal law - would any State law making marijuana illegal automatically be invalidated? Would the states have to make marijuana legal because the Feds did?
Click to expand...

The states could still outlaw it, sure. The problem goes the other way - pot is illegal under federal law, which supersedes state law. It's like gambling. It's legal under federal law, but outlawed in most of the states, or at least highly controlled. Nevada hasn't outlawed it, so it's legal there.

Theoretically, a state could outlaw tobacco, even though it's legal for the rest of the country. Such a law would be unenforceable, of course, and lead to major smuggling, but it would be a valid law nonetheless.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Uh...a city...cannot be "illegal", whateverthehell that means.
Click to expand...

LOL. Surely, you must listen to the news occasionally. No, the city isn't illegal, it's calling it a sanctuary city that's illegal under federal law. The problem is not allowing the feds to enforce immigration laws.
 
Dittohead not! said:
because federal law supersedes state law.

I think there would be more than a few people complaining, but, in the end, the feds would prevail. States rights are a thing of the past.
Click to expand...
Does this mean that the feds can pass a law requiring states and local cities to enforce federal immigration laws and they'd have to do it?
 
radcen said:
Does this mean that the feds can pass a law requiring states and local cities to enforce federal immigration laws and they'd have to do it?
Click to expand...

Now, that's a good question. They could perhaps pass such a law, but enforcing it would be even more difficult than enforcing pot laws. What the SCOTUS would say about it, I'm not sure.
 
Dittohead not! said:
And what will happen now that Eric Holder is no longer the attorney general? Will the Trump administration go into the states that have legalized marijuana and start arresting people under federal law? If that happens, it will certainly become a state's rights issue.

When some of the states wanted to continue to legalize slavery after the federal government had, by executive order no less, outlawed it, that caused a bit of unrest as well.

When San Francisco declared itself a "sanctuary city" for illegals when the feds wanted to crack down on illegal immigration, that raised similar issues: Just who is in charge? Federal laws supersede state and local laws, and therefore, sanctuary cities are illegal. Similarly, legalized pot is still illegal. The underlying issue is whether the US is a single nation, or a federation of smaller states.
Click to expand...

However, Sessions has zero dollars to go after states for medical marijuana for the current budget. Recreational pot is a different issue.
 
RAMOSS said:
However, Sessions has zero dollars to go after states for medical marijuana for the current budget. Recreational pot is a different issue.
Click to expand...

Sessions or any future AG can't go after pot users in states where it is legal with no money to do it, and that's for sure. What is to keep Congress from deciding to fund such an effort though?
 
Dittohead not! said:
it's calling it a sanctuary city that's illegal under federal law.
Click to expand...
Wrong again. A city govt may act in an illegal manner. This is basic English, but then those with the weakest grip on the language are often, ironically, the most xenophobic.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Sessions or any future AG can't go after pot users in states where it is legal with no money to do it, and that's for sure. What is to keep Congress from deciding to fund such an effort though?
Click to expand...

Not a darn thing.. However, for the current year, and 2018, there is no funding for it.
 
"Does this mean that the feds can pass a law requiring states and local cities to enforce federal immigration laws and they'd have to do it?" r #385
Click to expand...
Thanks for that.

Decades ago there was a kerfuffle over "motor / voter". It might seem an economically efficient way to register voters.

BUT !!

DMV's are State operations.
And motor / voter was federal.

So the cry proliferated: "No unfunded federal mandates!"
If the feds want DMVs to register voters across the nation, then the feds should pay for it.
"Does this mean that the feds can pass a law requiring states and local cities to enforce federal immigration laws and they'd have to do it?" r #385
Click to expand...
Same thing?

ps
I'm aware there's more to it than mere $money. For simplicity / brevity I'll leave it there for now.
 
Removable Mind said:
Jeff Sessions is a prick!

The U.S. attorney general is bringing back the harshest sentences for low-level drug offenses, rejecting Obama-era reforms.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/sessions-sentencing-memo/526029/

The Prison Economy is back on. So if Trump uses prisons and war to boost jobs in America that would make him "The Little Prick in Chief who wants to be The Big Prick in Chief".
Click to expand...

Nobody should be imprisoned for something like simple possession of a small quantity of drugs. I certainly don't want my tax dollars paying for such a thing.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Wrong again. A city govt may act in an illegal manner. This is basic English, but then those with the weakest grip on the language are often, ironically, the most xenophobic.
Click to expand...

It may act in an illegal manner by declaring their city a sanctuary city. Are we finished playing silly word games now?
 
RAMOSS said:
Not a darn thing.. However, for the current year, and 2018, there is no funding for it.
Click to expand...

So, we're home free until 2019. Meanwhile, Trump has other, more pressing problems to address, so it's unlikely this issue will be more than an academic question for the foreseeable future.
 
Dittohead not! said:
The states could still outlaw it, sure. The problem goes the other way - pot is illegal under federal law, which supersedes state law. It's like gambling. It's legal under federal law, but outlawed in most of the states, or at least highly controlled. Nevada hasn't outlawed it, so it's legal there.

Theoretically, a state could outlaw tobacco, even though it's legal for the rest of the country. Such a law would be unenforceable, of course, and lead to major smuggling, but it would be a valid law nonetheless.
Click to expand...

Okay we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this. Thanks for a couple days worth of conversation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom