[pleasenoobama]

Here's the issue I see: I agree that there shouldn't be a federal ban on medicinal use of marijuana and that state law should reign supreme in this case, but if such a law exists, is it right for a president to be able to unilaterally force the federal government to ignore it? This seems to be granting an enormous amount of power to the president, power that wasn't explicitly granted to the executive branch by the Constitution.

[Magic Fingers]

“I agree that there shouldn’t be a federal ban on medicinal use of marijuana and that state law should reign supreme in this case, but if such a law exists, is it right for a president to be able to unilaterally force the federal government to ignore it?”

If state law reigns supreme, isn’t that what the feds should be doing?

[djsherin]

***but if such a law exists***

Then it’s unconstitutional and shouldn’t be enforced.

[1010RD]

You are right, we do have an imperial Presidency, but Congress let it happen. They gave up the power and the President took it.

This is the natural result of the federalization of all things - increased bureaucracy and regulation first, then the centralization of power in a single man (the front for oligarchy) and legislation by whim.

[Clinging Bitterly]

...is it right for a president to be able to unilaterally force the federal government to ignore it?

I guess so. They've been doing it with immigration laws for a generation. That and just about any law where certain members of Congress are concerned.