Because we have a federal law against marijuana use, the justice department needs to enforce it. The alternative is to get the Congress and Senate to rescind the federal law.
It amazes me that so many people do not understand the fundamentals of our democratic republic.
>
Because we have a federal law against marijuana use, the justice department needs to enforce it. The alternative is to get the Congress and Senate to rescind the federal law.
>
Well, I guess now there’s the distinction between (C) and (L). (L) will note the Law is an ass and fight tooth-n-nail to correct the balance per the Constitution. (C) seems to go ‘Ho hum, we’ll elect BETTER (R)\(C) and THEN try to win back some of the massive yardage gained by the (D)\Leftists”...until it’s not their ox getting gored.
>
It amazes me that so many people do not understand the fundamentals of our democratic republic.
>
Constitutional Republic. Sad to see anything ELSE within FR.
Agreed, congress has been so busy pandering for money they’ve let the executive branch act at will.
If it is a law, enforce it, if you don’t like the law lobby to change it.
“... we have a federal law, the justice department needs to enforce it. It amazes me that so many people do not understand...”
Not to be snarky but it amazes me how so many people who talk about State rights over Federal law then change their minds when it is concerning something not to their liking. The same people who do a thumbs up now... will they also do a thumbs up when the Feds start pushing back on the states that are removing abortion clinics? Not really comparing pot to abortion, but I am looking at state rights more seriously.
I absolutely agree. The judicial branch should enforce our laws as written. In this case, changing the federal law would allow the states to choose for themselves...just what Trump promised. Selectively enforcing laws is all about exercising power. I don’t know why people like Cory Garner don’t want to address this by introducing legislation to change the law rather than attacking Trump and Sessions (of course, I know exactly why).
I see what you're saying, I think. For consistency's sake, rather than have federal laws we don't enforce due to "policy" (ahem: immigration) we need to set a precedent that a federal law must be enforced or overturned.