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....

[Finny]

Folks who speak Spanish consider it uncivil to be addressed informally rather than in third person if the person doing the addressing is younger or a perfect stranger.

Is it the general purpose of government to be used as a force to curb those who use the language wrongly?

[Fester Chugabrew]

That is hardly gross misbehavior. Your pettiness makes you sound like the liberal you claim me to be.

Meanwhile, may I ask what part of morality does not redound to the general welfare of society?

[Fester Chugabrew]

I need not prove anything to you, but since you asked, it is these words I find to be offensive, coming from a young whippersnapper who does not know me: “I’m VERY glad that you had zip to do with writing the Constitution.”

That kind of arrogance heaped upon a stranger is worthy of rebuke, and you will get it. It is especially offensive because it comes from a studied ignorance that does not recognize one of the most fundamental purposes of government, namely discipline and respect at every level.

[MaxMax]

The Feds are not allowed to trash either the 10th Amendment or the Second Amendment.

Right, which is why I followed up with,
The Feds over-reach is devastating which is the more important point here.

And yes, the Feds have been trumping States rights when they don't agree
on what is being brought about. There's that old "thing" that says when there's
a disagreement the Feds win by default. I'm not only talking about the
Constitutional issues either.

Not sure if you understood what you did, but taking the first sentence, only,
places my post out of context. I don't appreciate that.

[Finny]

Thank you for being specific.

I am interested to know how young you think I am.

[Fester Chugabrew]

I would place you at age 33 or younger if I had to guess, but your age does not matter that much. I am glad you have respect for the limits to which government ought to be employed, and appreciate your expressions as they relate to liberty in general.

[Jim Noble]

Here's the thing:

When Congress got the idea of banning alcohol in 1917, it was clear to them and to everyone else that they had no authority to do so, that any such action was up to the States, and that in fact the Constitution would have to be amended to add alcohol prohibition to Congress' enumerated powers.

So where, by 1971, did Congress get the idea that they HAD the power to write Federal drug laws, that no addition to their powers were necessary?

I do not favor legalizing pot. I think states that have done so will soon realize that it was a mistake. But I would strongly support a candidate answering the question of Federal anti-pot laws by saying, "Not my circus, not my monkeys", or something like that.

[Finny]

...one of the most fundamental purposes of government, namely discipline and respect at every level.

Excuse me, but that is NOT a fundamental purpose of government, and quite clearly, the Founders understood that it was outside the purview of government.

Discipline and respect, or the teaching/enforcing of them, ARE the fundamental purposes of a good church and/or a good parent. If a city, county, or state wants to be dry (no alcohol sales) in order to enforce discipline and respect, you are free to live there, and I am free to live in a state where government is the one exercising the discipline and respect toward individual rights to make mistakes and either grow from them or not.

I repeat that BECAUSE you have such a wrong and tyrannical view of the "fundamental purposes of government," I am glad you had zip to do with writing the Constitution.

WHY do you think the very moral and very Christian framers failed to include ANY prohibition of gambling, prostitution, and drunkenness in the Constitution?

Or were they all wrong with regard to the "fundamental purposes of government"? Were they as studied in their ignorance as you appear to be, in assessing the proper use of government to "rebuke" a stranger who disputes others' opinions?

[Finny]

Well, you'd be wrong in your gage of my age. But as FReeper knarf wrote on a different thread:

Growing up is a life long experience ... I'm 67 and such a child.

It is true for me AND THEE as well as for knarf.

[Springfield Reformer]

Murder, theft, adultery, and slander qualify as gross misbehavior. All of these are subject/objects of law enforcement at nearly every level

No one here is arguing that these are not bad behaviors.  They are.  Drunk or otherwise incompetent driving is reprehensible too.  But the question is this:  Under a system where we are ruled by laws and not men, and the supreme law is our Constitution, what is the proper legal processing of these bad events?  Ohoian is right on the money.  Monitoring and curbing the bad behavior of private individuals falls under state jurisdiction, not federal.  The federal power was designed as a glue that keeps the states as political entities in cooperative and beneficial relationship with each other.  The Bill of Rights recognizes individual rights, but not in order to protect one private individual from another, but to protect the private individual from abuse of the state or federal power.  As between private individuals, the firewall of protection is the police power.

As for the General Welfare clause, it has been rightly observed that  once you give it open-ended interpretation, divorcing it from its context of federal spending under the enumerated powers (and it has nothing to do with enforcement against bad private behavior in even the wildest stretch), you can use it to totally subvert all the other enumerated limits.  From U.S. v Butler, 1936:

(12) If the novel view of the General Welfare Clause now advanced in support of the tax were accepted, that clause would not only enable Congress to supplant the States in the regulation of agriculture and of all other industries as well, but would furnish the means whereby all of the other provisions of the Constitution, sedulously framed to define and limit the power of the United States and preserve the powers of the States, could be broken down, the independence of the individual States obliterated, and the United States converted into a central government exercising uncontrolled police power throughout the Union superseding all local control over local concerns. P. 75.

Available here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/297/1

In fact, the argument for ObamaCare was made in part on the basis of the General Welfare clause. Because once you admit that "general welfare" might mean anything, you have no way to stop it from being used to circumvent the enumerated powers.  It makes the Constitution into a self-destructive document.  In statutory interpretation, you have to approach a statutory text as NOT designed to undermine its own reason for being.  It is as if to say the Constitution was set up as a limit on federal power, except for everything the federal power feels like being in control of, which would of course be nonsense, and we do not accept that the founders intended nonsense.  For a good article taking this even further, see here:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/01/Enough-Is-Enough-Why-General-Welfare-Limits-Spending

Indeed, this is one of those debates it would be great to resolve with a clarifying amendment to the Constitution.  The abuse has gone on too long. Time to stop.

Peace,

SR

[Finny]

Meanwhile, may I ask what part of morality does not redound to the general welfare of society?

None of it -- but we're not talking about morality and the general welfare of society, but the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT's role in enforcing laws to punish what it gages to be "immoral" in the name of promoting the general welfare of society.

To some people, smoking cigarettes or getting drunk is immoral and therefore harmful to the general welfare of society. To others, owning guns is immoral and harmful to the general welfare of society. To yet others, myself included, owning guns, smoking cigarettes, and getting drunk are all personal rights that the our government in the United States was written to RESPECT. There are plenty of laws that promote the general welfare by punishing people who engage in actual CRIMES like theft, murder, fraud, and assault.

[Finny]

Wonderfully well said. BUMP

[ConservingFreedom]

Monitoring and curbing the bad behavior of private individuals falls under state jurisdiction, not federal. [...] As for the General Welfare clause, it has been rightly observed that once you give it open-ended interpretation, divorcing it from its context of federal spending under the enumerated powers (and it has nothing to do with enforcement against bad private behavior in even the wildest stretch), you can use it to totally subvert all the other enumerated limits.

Amen!

[Finny]

Thinking that the purpose of government is to "curb against incivility" or to dictate moral choices is EXACTLY the rationale the Federal government uses to force people to accommodate gay marriage, gay adoption, gay promotion to school kids, etc.

Liberals think it is immoral and uncivil to reject homosexuals, so they use government exactly the way you recommend, and it is the ONLY way they can use the ONLY force to make Americans behave immorally.

Charity is a Christian duty, a moral duty requiring voluntary sacrifice on the part of the giver and inspiring gratitude and indebtedness on the part of the receiver.

The government has usurped that duty and now forces ALL taxpayers to engage in charity because it "promotes the general welfare," it is the moral thing to do, in the eyes of liberals. So then the charity is regurgitated as welfare, the charity givers become SLAVES, and the receivers become entitled dependents.

Using government the way Cruz and many of we FReepers recommend -- to wit, to keep the Federal government LIMITED and OUT of the morality business and sticking to its enumerated LIMITED powers -- would IMPROVE morality by allowing people, states, counties, cities, to deal each in their own civil, peaceful ways with homosexuals and charity. America would be a more moral place if the Federal government had stayed out of the morality business. Liberals call for more use of government -- so even those who want to use government to enforce Christian morals, are still liberals.

Cruz and I and many other Christians are limited government Christian conservatives. We are well differentiated from big government liberals of both parties.

[Finny]

Please be so kind as to review my home page.

I am so ... astounded that a self-defined "conservative" could write: Hopefully the proper authorities would also tame your arrogant mouth as well.

My home page will inform you as to EXACTLY how I was raised with regard to arrogance and respecting "proper authorities." See my tagline if you want to know Who I recognize as a "proper authority."

[Fester Chugabrew]

Government should also properly serve as a curb against deviance.

[Fester Chugabrew]

The abuse of proper authority does not negate its necessity and/or proper use. Where do you think authority comes from? I suppose you can take pride in sticking your tongue out at older liberals, much as you did verbally to your elder neighbor on the other side of your keyboard today, but it does not bode well in terms of your understanding as to what constitutes civil behavior.

[jmacusa]

The end result of protecting people from their own stupidity is a world full of fools.

[jmacusa]

Well, it’ll never happen here in my state. Not as long as Chris “Lou Costello’’ Christie is governor.

[Ken H]

Right, which is why I followed up with, The Feds over-reach is devastating which is the more important point here.

And yes, the Feds have been trumping States rights when they don't agree on what is being brought about. There's that old "thing" that says when there's a disagreement the Feds win by default. I'm not only talking about the Constitutional issues either.

Not sure if you understood what you did, but taking the first sentence, only, places my post out of context. I don't appreciate that.

What do you mean by that old "thing", the Supremacy Clause?