Posted on 01/29/2003 4:33:54 AM PST by Wolfie
Drug Czar Won't Respond To Nevada Campaign Law Complaint
The national drug czar has declined to respond to complaints that the he broke Nevada law by not filing reports on money spent opposing November's marijuana ballot initiative.
The Marijuana Policy Project, which backed the defeated initiative to allow possession of up to 3 ounces of marijuana, said drug czar John Walters failed to submit his campaign finance report.
Nevada Secretary of State Dean Heller asked Walters for a response earlier this month.
But the Office of National Drug Control Policy said in a letter received Tuesday by Heller that Walters is immune from enforcement of Nevada's election laws.
The letter from office general counsel Edward Jurith said Walters was immune because he was a"federal official acting within the scope of duties, including speaking out about the dangers of illegal drugs."
Heller said he would review the response and may seek the opinion of state Attorney General Brian Sandoval.
Bruce Mirken of the Marijuana Policy Project said Walters' response indicates"he has moved from simply ignoring the law to actively defying it."
Mirken said past U.S. Supreme Court decisions found that the key test of immunity is whether state or local regulation"intrudes or interferes"with the federal government activities.
"The claim that he was just doing his job is obvious nonsense," Mirken said."He was explicitly campaigning against Question 9."
What "holds water" for me is the unanimity of numerous courts across the country and over time. Two wackos making one ruling from one court (which has been overturned 27 out of 29 times by the USSC) does not.
Why hear a meritless case?
The USSC does not have to hear every case brought to it. They do not have to give reasons for denying cert. Sometimes they do, most of the times they don't. Denying cert has nothing to do with the particular merits of a case. As told to you ad nauseum.Of course, the reason the USSC hasn't granted cert to a case directly challenging the CSA couldn't be because Rehnquist, as CJ, was one of, if not the, chief architects of a multitude of 4th Amendment cases expanding police powers, giving them more and more "tools" to fight the W.o.D. Yeah, the Chief Justice of the USSC is really going to grant cert to a case which could destroy his one major contribution to American jurisprudence. A smart man like Rehnquist is really willing to put a ball like that into play . . .
In other words, you don't have any particular standards or care about consistency, you just pick and choose according to what pleases you.
And they have apparently not bothered to hear any of the "drugs laws is unconstitutional" appeals.
Agreed, but only in your world does that mean they're telling everyone that drug laws are constitutional.
Talk about irony.
It is therefore not surprising that every court that has considered the question, both before and after the Supreme Court's decision in Lopez, has concluded that section 841(a)(1) represents a valid exercise of the commerce power. See, e.g., United States v. Edwards, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 1996 WL 621913, at *5 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 29, 1996); United States v. Kim, 94 F.3d 1247, 1249-50 (9th Cir. 1996); United States v. Bell, 90 F.3d 318, 321 (8th Cir. 1996); United States v. Lerebours, 87 F.3d 582, 584-85 (1st Cir. 1996); United States v. Wacker, 72 F.3d 1453, 1475 (10th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 136 (1996); United States v. Leshuk, 65 F.3d 1105, 1111-12 (4th Cir. 1995); United States v. Scales, 464 F.2d 371, 375 (6th Cir. 1972); Lopez, 459 F.2d at 953.Proyect v. United States
Consistency in terms of political ideology, i.e., in championing Big Government involvement in some issues, detesting it in others, and all the while claiming to be a conservative against "Big Government." Horizontal, vice vertical, thinking. Nobody's saying liberalism's illegal.More reading comprehension problems for you, Roscoe.
Take a deep breath.
Imagine the "jack booted glee" you'd enjoy if I breathed in some marijuana smoke, too?
Is it a cure for irrationality now?
Much better than beer, wine, or whiskey.
My philosophy may indeed be creepy, but does not involve strapping you to a chair and beating you with a rubber hose "WOD style."
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.