Posted on 01/07/2018 6:40:30 AM PST by MarvinStinson
Sessions was somewhat of a compromise when Trump nominated him. At the time, dems and beta male pubbies were still reeling from the election. Attack dogs still had the firepower, from inertia if not competency. They went nuts, and visibly went into obstruct mode, while betas were still going, “Whu?”
So his choices early on were even more limited than they are now. Sessions was a gentleman senator—squeeky clean and likeable, if not beta. So Trump held his nose and picked him.
Sessions is easily played. They played him good. Got him to recuse on anything election, russia, and Clinton Foundation. Trump was furious. He knew what they were doing, even if Sessions couldn’t. Lots of us watched in awe at how well they pulled it off, and how easily Sessions got rolled.
Nothing since has changed my mind, how awful Sessions is as AG.
And politically, Trump can’t fire him. Yet. But the day after Mueller shuts down, Sessions gets fired. Imho. That’s one of the reasons why dems want so bad to drag it out. They know it, too. Hell, everyone knows it. Except, perhaps, the doddering old fool himself.
Fortunately the IG report comes out in about a week. Sessions will have no choice but to go along with the calls for Special Prosecutor on all the hillary-obama crapolla. If he doesn’t, Congress will demand his firing.
Either way, hillary is doomed. Obama, perhaps, as well.
All drug law should be handled by the states.
The Federal Government does not constitutionally have the right to legislate such things.
There is a reason an amendment was needed to prohibit alcohol.
The reason that pot is illegal at the federal level is that in 1970, after the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 was repealed, the Controlled Substances Act in the 1970’s established Schedules for ranking substances according to their danger and potential for addiction.
Back then, they didn't know very much about whether or not pot was dangerous, they just basically knew that hippie freaks and blacks seemed to like it, so the drug warriors didn't. So in the absence of studies on the subject, they put cannabis in the most dangerous class (CLASS I) just in case.
SCHEDULE 1 (CLASS I) DRUGS are illegal because they have high abuse potential, no medical use, and severe safety concerns; for example, narcotics such as Heroin, LSD, and cocaine.
Today the medical uses of cannabis are well documented, and are used widely in lieu of opiates. That in and of itself is a legit reason they should re-examine the issue of whether or not cannabis belongs in Schedule I.
If they changed that, there would be no federal issue, and the issue would fall under the 10th Amendment,which states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Just like President Trump said on the subject.
NOTE: This is not and endorsement of cannabis, just a historical answer to your very good question.
Something called eating the cake and wanting it too?
“Advocates, like yourself, either disregard the social costs of this or don’t care.”
I trust the people of their state to deal with the social costs of their policies, rather than fedgov.
Do you not support the Tenth Amendment?
You are right. The 10th Amendment doesn’t stop any State’s citizens from being stupid. And, stupid can’t be fixed.
I still think the upper level trials will be flipped to military tribunals. Using that venue to mete out justice allows Trump to remove himself as a partisan figure. Sure, DoD & DoJ report to him, but everyone recognizes that Justice is more political than Defense. If the extent of corruption is as great as many of us believe, then that will just lend further support that it cannot - in its current state - conduct its responsibilities in a professional manner for such an important matter like treason.
I still hold reservations about Sessions. The entire reveal over the last 12-18 months has been almost too perfect. I ask, how could what is now occurring have turned out any better? If Sessions has been an aggressive AG, then Trump would have been accused of exercising political interference. In fact, the left would have run with moral equivalence: Trump & Obama both used the executive branch to persecute/spy on civilians.
I disagree it is a legitimate exercise of discretion, a legitimate check on the legislative branch
Civics 101.
Oh, it is.
Starting with the NSA, CIA, FBI, IRS and other "retired" persons of interest.
Sessions was a great Senator: good office decor, no molesting of the interns, no financial scandal, did nothing of consequence, retired to take a better job.
Too bad the job he took,AG, he was not qualified for.
The job of the DOJ is to enforce the laws. Period. We can't complain about Obama's DOJ deciding which laws to enforce, and which ones to ignore (immigration) if we turn around and do the exact same sort of thing.
Congress needs to update the MJ laws or remove them and let the states decide how they want to handle the issue.
Sessions is doing the right thing by not following in Holder's/Lynch's footsteps in the concept of "we decide what laws to enforce and which ones to ignore".
Republicans (controlling the House and Senate) need to grow a spine and tell the public why they're not addressing the outdated Federal Marijuana laws and explain why they seem to prefer to let the Executive branch legislate via selective enforcement.
You are correct and thanks for posting. Legitimate law can only be derived from constitutional authority. People who forget that are not conservatives.
I assumed completing Law School and passing the Bar required intelligence and focus.
Jay Inslee proves otherwise.
I'll do one better...I'll show you where the Constitution tells the President to faithfully execute the laws of the United States whether he likes the laws or not: Article 2, section 3.
From wikipedia:
The President must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."[25] This clause in the Constitution imposes a duty on the President to enforce the laws of the United States and is called the Take Care Clause,[26] also known as the Faithful Execution Clause[27] or Faithfully Executed Clause.[28] This clause is meant to ensure that a law is faithfully executed by the President [26] even if he disagrees with the purpose of that law.[29]
If potheads or wannabe potheads don't like that the President of the United States is following the constitution and faithfully executing the laws of the United States then CHANGE THE LAWS. Otherwise you don't have a leg to stand on and you're whining just to whine.
Been asking the same question for a long time
So if Congress passes a law that we should throw open the borders and let any one in who wishes to come in, and somehow overrides a Presidential veto, you’d be fully in favor of that law being enforced?
“Very true, which makes it your responsibility, not mine.”
I figured it was something like that.
I win. You had to make up a ridiculous, hypothetical situation in order to try and subvert the constitution which clearly says the President must faithfully uphold the laws.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.