Monday, October 19, 2009

I actually partially agree with Mr. Obama on something. Holy Smokes.

As obviously known from my prior postings, I'm not a fan of Mr. Obama.That includes how he acts as a person, how his people runs his campaign, and his policies that 99% of the time results in more government and less freedom. This is one of the 1% exceptions (or at least halfway agreement).

From the AP


WASHINGTON – Pot-smoking patients or their sanctioned suppliers should not be targeted for federal prosecution in states that allow medical marijuana, prosecutors were told Monday in a new policy memo issued by the Justice Department.
Under the policy spelled out in a three-page legal memo, federal prosecutors are being told it is not a good use of their time to arrest people who use or provide medical marijuana in strict compliance with state law.
The guidelines issued by the department do, however, make it clear that federal agents will go after people whose marijuana distribution goes beyond what is permitted under state law or use medical marijuana as a cover for other crimes.

Quite simply, this should not be an issue for the feds. It should fall to the states. We have the 10th Amendment for a reason, and despite poor court decisions in Wickard v Filburn and Gonzales v Raich, policies not spelled out in the Constitution including Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment (Civil Rights) belong to the states and the people. I'd go further and say that drug policy that does not cross the borders are state issues and should be policed as they see fit.

If I smoke a doobie (and no, I don't smoke pot), it's none of the business of the feds. There's more important things they should worry about, like a balanced budget without raising taxes.

Less Government, more freedom.

3 comments:

Dan Sheill said...

This is a great example of the lack of credibility among many "conservatives" in today's Republican Party. I can't remember the last time that I heard a Republican officeholder talk about "states rights."

As much as they claim to hate the federal gov't infringing on the states, many, such as Congressman Lamar of Texas, show their hypocrisy when it comes to drugs and gay marriage. The full faith and credit argument is horseshit. OK, basically an Iowa gay couple under FFC (as currently construed) is not entitled to the status of their marriage being recognized in Michigan. But any enforcement pursuant to an Iowa divorce decree (such as property distribution) will and should be enforced just like any contract settlements.

Another good issue is abortion. It's my feeling that many social conservatives construe the "right to life" clause as loosely as liberals construe the "general welfare" clause. As a matter of fact, the "right to life" clause is not in the Constitution, but rather, the Declaration of Independence. I would like to get Michigander thoughts on what role, if any, under the 10th Amendment, that he believes the federal government should have in regulating abortion.

Republican Michigander said...

The gay marriage one is easy with me. I'd prefer government getting out of marriage altogether.

Abortion is another story. While it should (and I'd prefer it this way) be taken care of on the state level, I break with that on the federal level if needed for the same reason why the civil rights laws were enacted. 14th Amendment.

""""Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"""

The question with abortion is this. Is a fetus a person or not? If it is, then the 14th Amendment is quite clear. The defenseless need to be protected, for the same reason why we have murder laws, or civil rights laws. In addition to that, as long as Roe V Wade, Doe V Bolton, and Planned Barrenhood, I mean Parenthood v Casey is in effect, then it's a federal issue as well.

Dan Sheill said...

So, would you make abortion a 9th Amendment liberty/life issue (incorporated into the states via the 14th Amend)? Do you believe that the Commerce Clause should ever be used to regulate prohibit/abortions?