Ted Cruz WON’T order a pot crackdown in states where it’s legal if he’s made president...

The London Daily Mail ^ | April 20, 2015 | Francesca Chambers in Nasua, New Hampshire

[2ndDivisionVet]

Ted Cruz is personally against the legalization of marijuana but the Republican presidential candidate said this weekend that he believes states have the right to put decriminalization laws on the books if they want - even though they directly conflict with federal law.

Cruz implied during a conversation with Daily Mail Online on Saturday that if he ascended to the highest elected office he wouldn't make his attorney general enforce federal laws pertaining to marijuana in states that have approved sales and consumption of the drug.

The position stands in contrast to the views of at least three of his GOP competitors, who last week said that while they believe in states' rights to self-determination, they'd lay the hammer down on Colorado and Washington for flouting federal law.

Asked Saturday during a New Hampshire campaign stop if he would direct his attorney general to enforce federal pot laws, Cruz said ‘yes’ before providing a lengthy answer that indicated he would not.

He first said that ‘if the attorney general and the president disagree with federal drug law they should come to Congress’ because Republicans and Democrats can come together on the issue of drug reforms....

[muir_redwoods]

So, just like alcohol and tobacco, right?

[trebb]

How about just legalizing altogether and end this bs once and for all?

Can't tell which way you're going by the comment (either pro-pot or a wry slap at Cruz for not forcing the Federal laws on the States.

As far as the article, Cruz's attitude is exactly what one would expect from one who believes in the Constitution and the very limited role of the Feds as laid out in it and the amendments.

[rfreedom4u]

I don’t believe the fed should have anything to do with MJ being legal or not. It should be left to each state.

[Fester Chugabrew]

There is nothing wrong with government as a tool for curbing gross misbehavior. I would expect as much at every level: parental, local, state, and federal. But . . . it is a mess when large segments of the general population are ignorant and mendacious. For example, those in authority who fail to discipline thug-boys who run around with their pants half down siring children of multiple mothers are as much pox on society as are the fruits of their laziness.

[ConservingFreedom]

He’s doing it because he believes in the constitution and states rights.

Yup - Cruz is not a penumbral emanationist like some alleged 'conservatives'.

[Leep]

The pendulum swings back in forth. It has been stuck for some time now.

[Springfield Reformer]

Dawg, if you want to make sure that drug laws target teens, fine, push for them in your town, your county, your state. WHAT does the Federal government have to do with it? What you call "useless minutiae" is a fundamental principle and yes, Cruz is "exploring it" in this discussion. It applies to drugs the same way it applies to health insurance the way it applies to marriage the way it applies to "gay" marriage the way it applies to education, and on and on.

Cruz is RIGHT.

That's how I see it.  And I have to confess, coming of age during the hippie era of the 60's and 70's, I was all for enforcement against mind-altering drugs, no matter what level of government was doing the enforcing.  I saw first hand how destructive drug abuse could be.  And for me this included alcohol and tobacco.  At that time in my life, I'd have been fine with universal prohibition. My grandparents on my mother's side were nearly killed in a head on collision with a drunk driver.  So I understand the impetus to suppress these things.  They are evil, and they work evil in any culture that tolerates them.

Having said that, the federal government is a creation of the Constitution.  It should only serve those purposes for which it was designed, and not a whit more.  The founders were concerned about the consolidation of too much power in some remote location detached from the people forced to live under that power.  They wanted a system that maximized both freedom of the people and accountability of those who had the rule over them.  They came up with this separation of powers between the states and the federal government, such that the fed would really only have a role as referee between the states, and to organize the states for the occasional special project, like fighting an international war, etc.  The fed was never intended to replace the states as the behavioral monitor of individual citizens.  

By original design then, if a state chooses a poor course of action in an area not covered by the Constitution, it should be up to the good people of that state to either repel that dissolution within the boundaries and laws of their own state, or vote with their feet and go elsewhere. Such things do not belong under federal jurisdiction, except as it affects the relationships between states. The right of states to self-govern entails the duty to govern well or pay the consequences for idiocy.  One of the reasons we have liberal states surviving as unnaturally long as they have is the giant "safety net" of federal largess protecting them from the natural consequences of their bad behavior.  

So as painful as it is, to restore order under local control, we need to populate the federal government with leaders who understand and are willing to be restrained by the constitutionally limited role of the federal power. Right now, Ted Cruz answers that description well.

Peace,

SR

[odawg]

I am not a fan of federal government mandates. However, the Constitution does mandate the federal government promote the general welfare. Tobacco has been grandfathered in as far as its legality; had it been innovated in the last fifty years, it would have been outlawed. Alcohol can certainly be dangerous if abused, but no one will ever again call for its prohibition, and probably shouldn’t. But however you slice it, mood altering drugs are inherently dangerous, and quickly so. We all know what heroin does on the streets; weed is just slower. You would not want your daughter dating a pothead. There is a reason for that. I’ve had some friends who smoked weed. I thought some of them were nice people. They told me they were addicted to it - had to have it. What happened in Colorado presages the further breakdown of society.

[Finny]

There is nothing wrong with government as a tool for curbing gross misbehavior.

The Founders certainly thought there was a LOT wrong with that.

That's why they wrote the Constitution the way it is -- how "gross" a misbehavior is gambling? How "gross" a misbehavior is prostitution? How "gross" a misbehavior is drunkenness, or drug abuse, same things essentially, just different methods? Well guess what, Fester -- the Constitution left gambling, prostitution, and drunkenness "legal" for all intents and purposes. I'm VERY glad that you had zip to do with writing the Constitution, with your attitude about the use of government "as a tool for curbing gross misbehavior." YIKES. You need to join the Democrat party, dear.

The Founders MADE IT A POINT to refrain from using government "as a tool for curbing" those sins. States, counties, cities, are the places where regulations to "curb gross misbehavior" belong, because your idea of "gross misbehavior" may be a very, very far cry from MY idea of "gross misbehavior."

So if you want to live in a place where alcohol cannot be sold on Sunday, if you want to live in a place where smoking cigarettes is virtually illegal anywhere (as in the leftist-controlled home town of Ted Cruz' wife, ironically!), you CAN, and I can live in a place where one's own moral lessons in life are learned by experience rather than by the government deciding what constitutes "gross misbehavior."

[Finny]

However, the Constitution does mandate the federal government promote the general welfare. Tobacco has been grandfathered in as far as its legality; had it been innovated in the last fifty years, it would have been outlawed.

Please, please, please, leave the Republican party and go register as a Democrat, because that is where YOUR mindset belongs. You are as much an advocate of government tyranny as any Democrat.

[Finny]

However, the Constitution does mandate the federal government promote the general welfare.

Which rationale is how all these destructive, tyrannical environmental regulations get into place -- they are "promoting the general welfare" and those who deny "climate change" are working to harm the general welfare. Right????

Please, please please stop confusing "welfare" and "morality."

Having a consistent measuring system, a consistent monetary system, road and rail systems, etc., is "promoting the general welfare."

Outlawing tobacco promotes the self-aggrandizement of control freaks who think it's their job to save people not as smart as themselves from what they think are risky behaviors, from learning from their mistakes and growing from them, and instead using government to threaten them with punishment if they are so stupid as to indulge in a weakness or a sin -- saving them from the consequences, you see.

If you are registered as a Republican, you should re-register as a Democrat -- Democrats have zero respect for the rights of individuals to learn and grow from their own mistakes, and in the process set examples for others to follow to avoid making the same mistakes. YOU presume to use government to bypass that process altogether, and THAT is the WRONG job for government. THE FOUNDERS KNEW IT. So does Ted Cruz.

[Ken H]

States rights prevail, but the Feds can take that away when they get involved.

That's like saying gun rights prevail, but the Feds can take that away when they get get involved. The Feds are not allowed to trash either the 10th Amendment or the Second Amendment.

[Ohioan]

You need to read the Constitution in context. The General Welfare clause is a limitation, not a gross empowerment.

If you will simply take the time to read Article I, line by line, and consider what you are reading. None of the Constitutional functions granted to Congress go to what Constitutional authorities refer to as the "Police Powers," those functions that go specifically to protecting the health, safety & morals of a community. Those powers were kept by the States, when they created the Federal Government, and the "whys" & "hows" of same should be obvious. There is no way that the Virginia & Carolina gentry or their counterparts in the New England mercantile classes, would have ever been likely to agree to having their morals defined by their new compatriots in the Federal experiment.

Cruz understands the division of function. He is to be commended for such, even as others disqualify themselves by ignoring the very basic principles involved.

The point will illustrate why some of us could never have supported Rick Santorum, had he obtained the nomination in 2012. We were not being punitive.

[Finny]

Pings to my posts 70 and 71 ... sorry I forgot!

[Ohioan]

Please, please please stop confusing "welfare" and "morality." Or "general" with "particular."

Much of the gross over-application of Federal activity in recent decades has served not the general, but the particular, welfare of specific special interests. The practice would have been anathema to the Founding Fathers.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Murder, theft, adultery, and slander qualify as gross misbehavior. All of these are subject/objects of law enforcement at nearly every level in case you haven’t noticed. And if you talked to me like that as my son I’d smack your ass from here to kingdom come, verbally at least. Hopefully the proper authorities would also tame your arrogant mouth as well. Grow up, Sonny.

[Finny]

Murder, theft, adultery, and slander qualify as gross misbehavior.

So, what's the dif between a crime and gross misbehavior? How much farting in a crowded elevator does it take for it to change from "annoyance" to "gross misbehavior"?

And if you talked to me like that as my son I’d smack your ass from here to kingdom come, verbally at least. Hopefully the proper authorities would also tame your arrogant mouth as well. Grow up, Sonny.

You really, truly, belong in the Democrat party. You are presumptuous, arrogant, controlling, and a tyrant with apparently ZERO respect for the rights of anyone to live by a different code than your own.

[Finny]

"Please, please please stop confusing 'welfare' and 'morality.'"

Or "general" with "particular." Much of the gross over-application of Federal activity in recent decades has served not the general, but the particular, welfare of specific special interests. The practice would have been anathema to the Founding Fathers.

Well said, Ohioan. Fester, GET IT?????

[Fester Chugabrew]

It is simply one general purpose of government to use force as a curb against incivility. If you do not recognize that fact, you belong on another planet.

[Finny]

Here is where you can prove whether you are a coward/blowhard, or a man of sense. A very simple way you can prove one or the other. Please read on and take my challenge.

And if you talked to me like that, as my son I’d smack your ass from here to kingdom come, verbally at least.

What specific words in my post #69, the one that offended you so deeply, do you think are so deserving of such punishment from you? BE SPECIFIC. How did I address you with disrespect?

PLEASE cut-and-paste the exact phrasing that would, if I were your son, tick you off so much that you'd "verbally smack my ass from here to kingdom come."

PLEASE cut-and-paste the exact phrasing in that post, that prompted you to respond: Hopefully the proper authorities would also tame your arrogant mouth as well.

Either you will be a coward and write all kinds of reasons why you cannot respond with cut-and-paste examples and shouldn't have to ...

... or you will cut-and-paste examples of my words from the post that justify your anger and desire to punish me.

You are either a coward/blowhard/tyrant, or you are a sensible man. PROVE which one you are, please, if you have the integrity to do so.