General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWait a minute!!! Im comfused about something here....
Introduced by Reps. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), Jim Gerlach (R-Pa.) and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), the ENFORCE the Law Act (H.R. 4138) would allow the House or the Senate to sue the president for "failure to faithfully execute federal laws," including those related to immigration, health care and marijuana.
"President Obama has established a disturbing pattern of cherry picking the laws he wishes to enforce," Issa said in a statement. "The Constitution charges the President with the responsibility to faithfully execute all the laws and not just the ones he supports."
A Judiciary Committee report submitted by Goodlatte last week regarding H.R. 4138 chastised the Obama administration for selective enforcement of the Controlled Substance Act, which prohibits marijuana outright. "The decision by the Obama administration not to enforce the CSA in entire states is not a a valid exercise of prosecutorial discretion," the report reads. "The guidance of U.S. Attorneys establishes a formal, department-wide policy of selective non-enforcement of an Act of Congress. This infringes on Congress's lawmaking authority, by, in effect, amending the flat prohibitions of the CSA to permit the possession, distribution, and cultivation of marijuana so long as that conduct is in compliance with state law."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/14/republicans-force-obama-legal-marijuana_n_4964995.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
I thought these fucking idiots supported state rights?
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)when it comes to those dirty fuckin' hippies.
valerief
(53,235 posts)constituents will notice.
meadowlark5
(2,795 posts)Same for free market.
Those things only apply when it's what they want. And I honestly don't think the dipshits even see the hypocrisy. They're so arrogant and self righteous they can't recognize how hypocritical so much of their legislation is.
Igel
(35,320 posts)We also used to hate uneven and capricious enforcement of the law. In fact, a number of laws were thrown out as punishment for the executive branch--if you couldn't enforce the law in an equitable way when you were able to, the application was deemed un-Constitutional and a denial of due process.
Now, just as we hated state rights "on principle" we like uneven enforcement "on principle."
It's painful sometimes to see those traits that we all have in common as humans.
All states have laws which differ from other states, courtesy of the Tenth Amendment. Those which were "thrown out as punishment for the executive branch" were, in fact, ruled unconstitutional, as a violation of Article Six, and/or the Fourteenth Amendment.
What do you mean by "uneven enforcement"?
BTW, in answer to the OP: States' Rights has always been shorthand for segregation, period.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)Going to see more of this type of shit. With the chickensh*t reporters out there,this is just more raw meat for them.
Remember:Stupid can not be cured.
Loudly
(2,436 posts)Gotta wonder.
HeiressofBickworth
(2,682 posts)some kind of charges that would fit the definition of causes for impeachment. Ginning up something about "failure to faithfully execute federal laws" might just fit the bill. Even more reason Dems need to get out to vote in large numbers. If Repubs win the senate, impeachment will be right around the corner. The key is to remember that they will do, say, act anything to discredit or eliminate this (Black, Democratic) president.