Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Drug Czar Won't Respond To Nevada Campaign Law Complaint
Associated Press ^ | Jan. 28, 2003

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."


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: drugwar; loserwhiners; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-213 next last
To: Wolfie
Yeah, what a disgrace.....it's a total LIE, too. The federal government was created by the STATES, not the other way around. It's purpose was to serve the States. I can't remember if it was Jefferson or Madison (???) that said that having this attitude (where the federal government was superior to the States) was like considering a slave to be above its master, or something like that. Damn, I wish I could remember the exact wording of it! (Short term memory problem, lol!)
21 posted on 01/29/2003 6:07:07 AM PST by libertyman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
Well, this is really surprising/sarcasm

Nevada actually has a golden opportunity here to push the State's rights issue. If Walters will not respond, then the State Attorney should move to file charges. Walters can be served and told to show up in court. If he doesn't, it is contempt and a warrant would be issued. The police of the State he is in would have to take him into custody and turn him over. This could get good......

22 posted on 01/29/2003 6:19:00 AM PST by FreeTally (How did a fool and his money get together in the first place?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
That would be wonderful! Maybe the state legislature could convince one of Nevada's members of the U.S. House to initiate Impeachment of Walters....
23 posted on 01/29/2003 6:50:56 AM PST by libertyman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Dane
I don't recall you, or anyone else here defending Janet Reno using DOJ resources and personel to help the campaign to defeat the CCW iniative in Missouri. Were they just "exercising their First Amendment rights" too?
24 posted on 01/29/2003 7:11:00 AM PST by tacticalogic ("We stuffed his head with cannonballs and powdered his behind.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
You are applying logic to something Dane said. You should know better by now.
25 posted on 01/29/2003 7:15:54 AM PST by AUgrad (and when we took the powder off the gator lost his mind)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
U sure wouldn't see me defending Janet Reno, that scumbag.....what an embarrassment! Why isn't SHE in prison??? Altho I'm opposed to CCW laws (they ARE an infringement of our God-given & Constitutional right to keep & bear arms & possibly a Bill of Attainder as well, which is also UNconstitutional), what the voters w/in a state decide to do is none of the Fed's business one way or the other....including deciding their own drug laws.
26 posted on 01/29/2003 7:35:25 AM PST by libertyman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: libertyman
I'm opposed to CCW laws

Just FYI, the initative she was using DOJ resources to campaign against was to allow CCW.

27 posted on 01/29/2003 7:42:10 AM PST by tacticalogic ("We stuffed his head with cannonballs and powdered his behind.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
Laws are for little people, not for Federal Lords.
28 posted on 01/29/2003 7:46:43 AM PST by coloradan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
Laws are for the peasants, not for the rulers. Weren't you paying any attention when the Big Dog established this principle of Americanism?
29 posted on 01/29/2003 7:51:06 AM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
I don't recall you, or anyone else here defending Janet Reno using DOJ resources and personel to help the campaign to defeat the CCW iniative in Missouri. Were they just "exercising their First Amendment rights" too?

Of course I woudn't defend Reno, she is against the second amendment, but that doesn't matter to you.

All that matters to you is pot and you will go down the low road of insulting a good person like Walters by comparing him to Reno.

Why am I not surprised of the Hilalry like tactics of the pot uber alles crowd.

30 posted on 01/29/2003 8:18:38 AM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Hacksaw
If you people were as concerned about real issues, you would be dangerous.

If your side didn't have such a hard-on for criminalizing marijuana, we could move on to more pressing, more important matters.

31 posted on 01/29/2003 8:23:22 AM PST by Hemingway's Ghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Were they just "exercising their First Amendment rights" too?

OOF. Dane pays once again for leading with his chin.

32 posted on 01/29/2003 8:26:02 AM PST by Hemingway's Ghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
Typical big government liberal.

The WOD is New Deal/Great Society liberalism to its core

1. Its constitutional basis is an expansive view of the Commerce and General Welfare Clauses, just like Federal education, environment, welfare, and health care policies.

2. Like liberalism, it uses our Federal tax dollars for domestic social engineering.

3. Uses junk science to justify its need. An example would be the study that tried to say MJ was responsible for a huge increase in ER visits.

4. Creates arrogant bureacrats who think they are above the law.

5. Claim the problem is getting worse to justify more funds.

6. Claim they are winning to justify more funds.

7. Have contempt for the Tenth Amendment.

8. Have lousy public service ads.

33 posted on 01/29/2003 8:27:15 AM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Let me understand your position Dane.

You believe it is ok for the federal government to fly out a federal official, and have him/her campaign against a state initiative, at the taxpayers expense.

Skip pot. I am just talking about the practice in general. Some thing you drug warriors don't like to do. You feel free to cheer the feds ramrod over the constitution and states rights just for drugs.

If you are willing to give them the power to do this, I will be looking to see your reaction, when President Lieberman, sends AG Hillary Clinton out to campaign against state vouchers, CCW, parental notification laws, while she rides on the federal government dime.

Is there anything you guys won't support to keep the WOSD going?

34 posted on 01/29/2003 8:29:55 AM PST by dogbyte12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dane
All that matters to you is pot and you will go down the low road of insulting a good person like Walters by comparing him to Reno.

Really? And what is it that matters to you so much that you will go down the low road of double standards to excuse Walter's violation of Nevada's campaign laws?

35 posted on 01/29/2003 8:33:17 AM PST by tacticalogic (Controlled application of force is the sincerest form of communicaiton.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12
You believe it is ok for the federal government to fly out a federal official, and have him/her campaign against a state initiative, at the taxpayers expense.

Oh so there is something wrong with him speaking out on the subject? Look the pro-drug lobby put a lot of money into the failed Nevada rpo-pot initiative also, no one stopped them.

Like I stated earlier before this is all a case of sour grapes from the pro-pot crowd.

If you are willing to give them the power to do this, I will be looking to see your reaction, when President Lieberman, sends AG Hillary Clinton out to campaign against state vouchers, CCW, parental notification laws, while she rides on the federal government dime.

All pure hyperbolic conjecture on your part. Walters gave his opinion on the pro-pot intiative and you all are in a snit because a landslide majority sided with him.

36 posted on 01/29/2003 8:38:15 AM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Really? And what is it that matters to you so much that you will go down the low road of double standards to excuse Walter's violation of Nevada's campaign laws?

Ok, let's just duct tape Walter's mouth and you all can live in your hunky dory world where all criticism against your wonderweed is prohibited.

37 posted on 01/29/2003 8:40:16 AM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Walters gave his opinion on the pro-pot intiative and you all are in a snit because a landslide majority sided with him.

Walters is entitled to his opinion, and entitled to express his opinion - on his time and his dime. As far as his position as drug czar goes, it is his job to provide the public with the best information currently available on the subject (all the information, not just the bits and pieces that suit him). It is not his job to tell the public what conclusions they must draw, and what decisions they should make based on that information.

38 posted on 01/29/2003 8:47:40 AM PST by tacticalogic (Controlled application of force is the sincerest form of communicaiton.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
It is not his job to tell the public what conclusions they must draw, and what decisions they should make based on that information

And the public doesn't have to listen to him if they don't want to, you're just angry that they did listen to his message.

39 posted on 01/29/2003 8:52:48 AM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Dane
And the public doesn't have to listen to him if they don't want to, you're just angry that they did listen to his message.

No, we're "angry" that we paid for his politicking in a STATE matter with our federal tax dollars.

40 posted on 01/29/2003 8:55:37 AM PST by Hemingway's Ghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-213 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson