Imagine a President declaring that the feds would not enforce drug laws, and that the states could not arrest anybody caught transporting drugs across a state border because regulation of interstate commerce is a federal function.
Conclusion of 1070 ruling:
The Feds like a “Funded Mandate” (Law) if they support it.
If they don’t, they must remain Unfunded Mandates — even if a US State chooses to fund (enforce) the laws with its own state/local resources.
Then we the people ought to remove said president from office. :)
Rubio brought it up in his interview with Hannity--unfortunately that interview was pre-empted by the breaking news on the Sandusky verdict.
I really like Rubio--he's thoughtful and articulate, not full of the usual "bombast" so many politicians sesem to enjoy throwing around. Don't know if I'd rather see him stay in the Senate, or join Romney on the ticket.
But whatever, this country needs his thoughtfulness and courage!
Bad choice. The drug laws are contrary the Constitution; hell even by the lawyer's sacred cow of precedent the 18th Amendment was needed for federal regulation of Alcohol. No such amendment was ever passed with respect to drugs.
and that the states could not arrest anybody caught transporting drugs across a state border because regulation of interstate commerce is a federal function.
Heehee -- That would be amusing.