General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsObama Lies to Jake Tapper About His Ability to Reschedule Marijuana
http://justsaynow.firedoglake.com/2014/01/31/obama-lies-to-jake-tapper-about-his-ability-to-reschedule-marijuana/The Controlled Substance Act explicitly gives the executive branch the responsibility to change the schedule of any drug without needing to go through Congress. President Obama is either ignorant about his duties or straight up lied to Jack Tapper when directly asked about this. From the CNN interview:
[TAPPER] Or are you considering not making marijuana a Schedule One narcotic?
OBAMA: Well, first of all, what is and isnt a Schedule One narcotic is a job for Congress. Its not
TAPPER: I think its the DEA that decides
OBAMA: Its its not its not something by ourselves that we start changing. No, there are laws under undergirding those determinations
TAPPER: Would you support that move?
OBAMA: But the broader point, I stand by my belief, based, I think, on the scientific evidence, that marijuana, for casual users, individual users, is subject to abuse, just like alcohol is and should be treated as a public health problem and challenge.
This statement from Obama could not be more wrong. In fact the law requires the Attorney General to make the change without Congress based on new research. As a result this DEA is frequently scheduling new drugs or moving drugs to higher or lower schedules.
*I'm not sure how interviews are viewed in terms of paragraphs. If this is too many, let me know and I'll trim it back
TheMathieu
(456 posts)Maybe he was simply mistaken.
TalkingDog
(9,001 posts)Nobody thought to look it up and tell him???? Seriously?
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)but as seen over the past five years he has absolutely no spine for tough decisions. Between his cowardice and the fact that Big Pharma makes huge bucks off of the Drug War, and many of those bucks become campaign contributions, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the president is telling a little white lie
struggle4progress
(118,041 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)And no, he couldn't be that ignorant. His lie isn't even shaded. He confidently claims something that isn't patently false.
rock
(13,218 posts)giving him the benefit of the doubt. I took his statement on first reading to mean it's Congress's job, but not necessarily the only authority. But you're right he confidently claims otherwise.
On edit: usage/spelling.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)it'll explain why President Obama is neither "ignorant", nor did he lie, nor has he "confidently claim(ed) something that isn't patently false ... whatever that means.
mimi85
(1,805 posts)else going on in the world for Obama to concern himself with. MJ will be legal sooner rather than later when the tax money in those states where it's legalized starts rolling in. Firedoglake - it figures.
cali
(114,904 posts)love your lame excuses for that though.... the but, but but Firedoglake and the it doesn't really matter because MJ will be legalized soon, are quite amusing.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Congress certainly has the power to reclassify MJ and as Obama said
Its its not its not something by ourselves that we start changing. No, there are laws under undergirding those determinations
But trust you haters to latch on to any made up bullshit.
From Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act
The DEA also may begin an investigation of a drug at any time based upon information received from laboratories, state and local law enforcement and regulatory agencies, or other sources of information. Once the DEA has collected the necessary data, the Deputy Administrator of DEA,[14] requests from HHS a scientific and medical evaluation and recommendation as to whether the drug or other substance should be controlled or removed from control. This request is sent to the Assistant Secretary of Health of HHS. Then, HHS solicits information from the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration and evaluations and recommendations from the National Institute on Drug Abuse and, on occasion, from the scientific and medical community at large. The Assistant Secretary, by authority of the Secretary, compiles the information and transmits back to the DEA a medical and scientific evaluation regarding the drug or other substance, a recommendation as to whether the drug should be controlled, and in what schedule it should be placed.
The medical and scientific evaluations are binding to the DEA with respect to scientific and medical matters. The recommendation on scheduling is binding only to the extent that if HHS recommends that the substance not be controlled, the DEA may not control the substance. Once the DEA has received the scientific and medical evaluation from HHS, the DEA Administrator will evaluate all available data and make a final decision whether to propose that a drug or other substance be controlled and into which schedule it should be placed. Under certain circumstances, the Government may temporarily schedule[15] a drug without following the normal procedure. An example is when international treaties require control of a substance. In addition, 21 U.S.C. § 811(h) allows the Attorney General to temporarily place a substance in Schedule I "to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety". Thirty days' notice is required before the order can be issued, and the scheduling expires after a year; however, the period may be extended six months if rulemaking proceedings to permanently schedule the drug are in progress. In any case, once these proceedings are complete, the temporary order is automatically vacated. Unlike ordinary scheduling proceedings, such temporary orders are not subject to judicial review.
The CSA also creates a closed system of distribution[16] for those authorized to handle controlled substances. The cornerstone of this system is the registration of all those authorized by the DEA to handle controlled substances. All individuals and firms that are registered are required to maintain complete and accurate inventories and records of all transactions involving controlled substances, as well as security for the storage of controlled substances.
So there is a process for doing it and no part of that process is the president declaring it whatever he wants.
Fuck Firedog lake!
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Because that is what the President claimed.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Are you trying to argue congress cant legalize marijuana?
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)its not something by ourselves that we start changing. No, there are laws under undergirding those determinations
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)This is the part that's a lie
lapfog_1
(29,166 posts)HR-499.
It directs the Attorney General to remove Marijuana from the DEA controlled substances act as a schedule 1 controlled substance.
However, it also directs the Comptroller General to " review federal laws, regulations, and policies to determine if changes are desirable in light of this Act."
In other words, IF you want Marijuana decriminalized, the President or Congress could direct the AG to "make it so"... BUT if you want Marijuana to be regulated like Alcohol (not available to minors, inspected for various things, quality controlled, taxed, etc), you would need Congress (at the prompting of the Comptroller General) to amend various laws to make that happen.
So, yes, the President could remove Marijuana from the DEA list of controlled substances. BUT, Congress would need to amend or pass additional legislation to make Marijuana a regulated but legal substance similar to Alcohol (and probably under the jurisdiction of the BATF).
I think "lie" is waaay too over the top here.
If I was President, I wouldn't act without Congress to remove Marijuana from the DEA list... however, I would make it not a schedule 1 controlled substance.
Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)What happens if the President initiates a study and the study comes back and recommends that marijuana remain a schedule 1 drug or places it on some other schedule? While it's theoretically possible for the President to ignore those recommendations, it places him in a very vicarious position politically to do so. Just because the President can do something, doesn't mean it's a great idea.
The very best path to full legalization is for congress to act.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)This really isn't that tough.
Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)This is what he said...
...
Or are you considering not making marijuana a Schedule One narcotic?
OBAMA: Well, first of all, what is and isn't a Schedule One narcotic is a job for Congress.
This is correct. It is a job for congress.
TAPPER: I think it's the DEA that decides...
OBAMA: It's - it's not - it's not something by ourselves that we start changing. No, there are laws under - undergirding those determinations...
This is also correct. Obama can't change it by himself. The law dictates what the process is. Read the Controlled Substances Act. It's not the DEA that decides. It's not a simple process, and if the scientific findings per the criteria specified by the law say the drug shouldn't be removed from the schedule, it would be very difficult, if not impossible for Obama to do so. It could also be rescheduled which means recreational use would still be illegal under federal law.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)The President is massively incorrect, and that never looks good. Cannabis policy by Obama' own admission impacts the lives of millions of Americans adversely but that's not important enough for him to be informed about the basic functioning of the government which he heads? I do not agree with you at all.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Someone that is "massively incorrect" about the law AND the constitutional powers of the President, claiming:
See post #20.
TalkingDog
(9,001 posts)Bad argumentation to try to undercut the core of the issue with "guilt by association". Just sayin'
okaawhatever
(9,453 posts)probably thinking of the more generic, "make it legal" or "change the existing laws" which is Congress.
I don't find Fire dog Lake to be a credible source.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Just imagine our entire society on this stuff, acting like the POTUS, we wouldn't be able to trust anyone.
It would bring a tragic end to our great country.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Just kidding, I know Congress wouldn't help the needy even if the blue lights were coming down from Heaven.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Read this: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_cannabis_from_Schedule_I_of_the_Controlled_Substances_Act
on phone can give analysis later, main key is international treaty IMO
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)This is why many here are so incorrect.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)The Controlled Substances Act also provides for a rulemaking process by which the United States Attorney General can reschedule cannabis administratively. These proceedings represent the only means of legalizing medical cannabis without an act of Congress. Rescheduling supporters have often cited the lengthy petition review process as a reason why cannabis is still illegal.[3] The first petition took 22 years to review, the second took 7 years, the third was denied 9 years later. A 2013 petition by two state governors is still pending.
Rex
(65,616 posts)I don't care what he says, he knows exactly what pot IS and I don't expect him to come out and say, "yes kids smoke a lot of dope and go to school" NO sane person would expect that.
He knows things are changing and once again he is trying to figure out how to work with the loony side of Congress. Which is always a non-starter. How do you work with people that have PLEDGED to obstruct everything you do or suggest?
Looks like he is playing the 'wait and see' game.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)things are never as simple as folks would have it
{Disclosure: I am in favor of legalization/decriminalization of ALL drugs; and rather than treat drug use/abuse as a criminal matter, support a policy of treating it as a public health matter ... just like cigarettes and booze. But none-the-less, the law is the law!}
Okay here we go ... What does the law say?
TITLE 21 - FOOD AND DRUGS
CHAPTER 13 - DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION AND CONTROL
SUBCHAPTER I - CONTROL AND ENFORCEMENT
...
PART B - AUTHORITY TO CONTROL; STANDARDS AND SCHEDULES
§ 811. Authority and criteria for classification of substances.
(a) Rules and regulations of Attorney General; hearing
The Attorney General shall apply the provisions of this subchapter to the controlled substances listed in the schedules established by section 812 of this title and to any other drug or other substance added to such schedules under this subchapter. Except as provided in subsections (d) and (e) of this section, the Attorney General may by rule -
(1) add to such a schedule or transfer between such schedules any drug or other substance if he - (A) finds that such drug or other substance has a potential for abuse, and
(B) makes with respect to such drug or other substance the findings prescribed by subsection (b) of section 812 of this title for the schedule in which such drug is to be placed; or
(2) remove any drug or other substance from the schedules if he finds that the drug or other substance does not meet the requirements for inclusion in any schedule.
...
http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/legislation/ucm148726.htm
Simple ... that solves it, right? Well ... Not really. Let's look at that again:
http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/legislation/ucm148726.htm
What do subsections (d) and (e) say are the exceptions?
http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/legislation/ucm148726.htm
How does this fit? Well ... There are at least three International Treaties, conventions, and/or protocols, that take the authority to add or drop a drug from the Control Substances Schedules, out of the DoJ's hands.
http://www2.nycbar.org/pdf/report/uploads/3_20072283-InternationalDrugControlTreaties.pdf
The law is NEVER simple. And your not fully understanding a law does not make another's correct statement regarding that law, a lie.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)In theory it could be done, but not within the obligations of treaty, and guess who decides treaty? Congress. The President cannot unilaterally modify treaties. The US could do it in a flick of a pen, but then you have international obligations you have to worry about, because once the US legalizes, it is effectively legalized in all of those countries.
Rescheduling is going to take a years long process, much like DADT, there will have to be significant retraining of officers domestically, and there will have to be drawdown of DEA efforts abroad, as well as support systems for those countries who would be compelled to deschedule.
Obama was not entirely wrong and there's no suggestion he lied, he's just not the kind of person who would cause such a wide ranging change to treaty, and even if he knew he could do it overnight, he wouldn't because he's a responsible, careful minded and thoughtful President.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)President Obama was in no way wrong and he did not lie. The President, no President can unilaterally change the terms of an international treaty/treaties.
But you are correct ... here, again, President Obama has proven himself to be "a responsible, careful minded and thoughtful President."
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)argument. Reschedule does not legalize. Schedule One is the most controlled level, Meth and Heroine are less restricted and are claimed to have medical value. Treaties speak of legality of drugs, not of administrative scheduling of those drugs and they do not dictate those schedule levels. If cannabis was moved to the same schedule as Meth, it would still be illegal, like Meth, but a doctor could prescribe it and States could make regulations around it.
Show me this treaty that says Meth can be level 2 but cannabis must remain schedule 1. If you can't show it, it does not exist. And it does not exist.
To reschedule is not to legalize. It is not restricted by treaty, although legalization just might be. But schedule 2 drugs are still illegal, Meth is illegal, very much so. So changing the scheduling is not the same as legalizing. And only legalization is a possible treaty issue. Scheduling is not, that's purely our own business.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)Last edited Sat Feb 1, 2014, 02:57 PM - Edit history (1)
other than the supposedly temporary scheduling of cannabis as schedule I in the 1970s.
Holder, the DEA or Congress can change marijuana's drug scheduling without conflicting with international treaties - and the Single Convention is often interpreted as a statute dealing with trafficking, not individual use.
We already have three four nations (the U.S. via CO and WA, Uruguay, Canada, and Israel) in violation of the Single Convention in regard to cannabis, and the Single Convention itself is under attack by many European and South American nations that think it is obsolete.
I think Obama wants Congress to address this, but that doesn't mean Holder or the DEA could not do so. The Controlled Substances Act specifically mandated three routes by which scheduling could change - and those are the three.
I think his remarks have more to say about the backward ass nature of Congress and the desire of the DEA to protect its funding since most of the arrests for cannabis in the U.S. are for simple possession. They don't want to lose the gravy train that prohibition has been for them.
So, he's just putting off the issue. I understand this - but he doesn't explicitly say others cannot reschedule - he says Congress needs to do so. He said he wants Congress to do its job and make the schedule reflect the reality that Congress itself has declared marijuana has medical value by funding the law to create medical marijuana shops in DC.
eta: In fact, every nation that currently allows Sativex as a drug on its legal schedule of drugs contradicts the U.S. Controlled Substances Act. Those nations include Canada, Israel, Spain, Germany, Norway, and Great Britain, which was the first nation to legalize cannabis with the approval of Sativex as a prescription drug in 2010/
BeyondGeography
(39,284 posts)Intuitively, I look at threads like this and ask myself when is the last time the President mangled a basic statement on the law? He is not only an expert in both language and law, but very careful in his treatment of each when it comes to public statements. Looks like he's done it again...
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)it appears that this President is TOO smart for the American people. He is informed and thoughtful; Americans don't do informed (except by sound bites), or thoughtfulness (except when told to think what they already believe). His downfall seems to be that he (the Professor) expects that his students (the public) can keep up ... but that requires being informed and thoughtfulness.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)is at the base of much of the intelligentsia's angst, with respect to this President.
"He is so dumb; we are so much smarter"
"He's right ... Well, we can't be dumb, so he must be dishonest."
"He's honest ... Well, we are smarter and better informed."
"We're not smarter or better informed."
Next topic, disappearing from the first: "He is so dumb; we are so much smarter" ...
RainDog
(28,784 posts)you'd see that the lawyers talk about the coca leaf exception for Bolivia. A special exception to the Single Convention was made for the indigenous people of Bolivia to chew coca leaves (which, when processed, become cocaine.)
Since marijuana is a plant, not a synthesized or processed plant, it would fall under that same exception - if the law wanted to be consistent. It could well be argued that marijuana is part of American cultural life and, in fact, it has been argued that marijuana and the invention of jazz are inseparable.
So, the reality is that it is not cut and dried that law as it exists is set in stone for the AG.
Also, as I note, nations have already decided to ignore the Single Convention in relation to marijuana. Therefore, a precedent exists for nations to interpret the Single Convention as they choose - and many nations choose to interpret the Single Convention as something applicable to trafficking but not use.
As far as Obama goes - he actually said he wants Congress to address this by going through the process that is traditionally part of their job.
However, with a teabagger House, any reasonable person could determine that Congress is incapable of performing this function because they lack the intelligence to apply the law in a reasonable manner.
Cerridwen
(13,251 posts)Pathwalker
(6,597 posts)they're wrong again - so soon after the the last time.
Thank you for the FACTS.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)questionseverything
(9,631 posts)Gustavo de Greiff, former Attorney General of Colombia and also former Colombian Ambassador to Mexico, ―The majority of the representatives of the American countries, as well as the Caribbean, were for abandoning the actual strategy and replacing it with a regulation of production, commercialization, and consumption.‖ Following the conference, President Obama stated that ―The United States will not be going in this direction I personally, and my Administration‟s position is, that legalization is not the answer.‖
questionseverything
(9,631 posts)Governmental bodies have also occasionally commented on the state of the system. The European Parliament has taken the position that ―
the policy of prohibiting drugs, based on the UN Conventions of 1961, 1971 and 1988, is the true cause of the increasing damage that the production of, trafficking in, and sale and use of illegal substances are inflicting on whole sectors of society, on the economy and on public institutions, eroding the health, freedom and life of individuals
your link..http://www2.nycbar.org/pdf/report/uploads/3_20072283-InternationalDrugControlTreaties.pdf
actually makes it worse,i can see why the potus would not want to do this on his own but your link shows he is actively fighting the world and his own citizens on this
sigh
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)You're completely wrong, by the way.
struggle4progress
(118,041 posts)(c) Initial schedules of controlled substances
Schedules I, II, III, IV, and V shall, unless and until amended [1] pursuant to section 811 of this title, consist of the following drugs or other substances, by whatever official name, common or usual name, chemical name, or brand name designated:
Schedule I ...
(c) Unless specifically excepted or unless listed in another schedule, any material, compound, mixture, or preparation, which contains any quantity of the following hallucinogenic substances, or which contains any of their salts, isomers, and salts of isomers whenever the existence of such salts, isomers, and salts of isomers is possible within the specific chemical designation: ...
(10) Marihuana ...
It's not immediately clear exactly what flexibility this language provides with respect tio marijuana: the language apparently confers on the Attorney General some authority under § 811 to reschedule a "any material, compound, mixture, or preparation, which contains any quantity of the following hallucinogenic substances, or which contains any of their salts, isomers, and salts of isomers whenever the existence of such salts, isomers, and salts of isomers is possible within the specific chemical designation" -- but in such § 811 rescheduling the Attorney General is bound by the "recommendations of the Secretary to the Attorney General" "as to .. scientific and medical matters" and is also bound by international treaty and notices from the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The UN's International Narcotics Control Board complained to Holder last March that state legalization of marijuana violated international treaties to which the US is party, which has some relevance since under the Constitution Art IV par 2, This Constitution, and the Laws .. made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties .. under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land .. any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)It's not ever as simple as people want to believe.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)Individual states are challenging the federal law voluntarily. I think forcing them to change would cause unnecessary conflict.
This is no small change and the expectations of the acceptance of it should take into account local laws and culture.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Luckily LBJ didn't let voting rights be up to the states, because of laws and culture.
man, some of these excuses get downright idiotic.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)A constitutional right to get stoned vs voting?? Abandoning logic and creating ridiculous false equivilencies does not help this cause.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Uruguay just told them to fuck off. I don't see an armada forming of Montevideo.
Bolivia just rejected part of the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, the part that says the coca plant is a narcotic drug. I don't see the blockades going up.
As indicated in the excerpt above, the INCB's main power is the power to nag.
The UN anti-drug bureaucrats also consider things like safe injection sites to violate the treaties.
They can go cry their crocodile tears in Vienna.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)The President doesn't have the constitutional authority to alter Treaties ... on Congress does.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)I'm on you side, right?
And people don't get it, right?
So additional reasons can help?
What is done by executive authority can be reversed by executive authority?
Cerridwen
(13,251 posts)A presidential policy directive that implements or interprets a federal statute, a constitutional provision, or a treaty.
<snip>
Most executive orders are issued under specific statutory authority from Congress and have the force and effect of law. Such executive orders usually impose sanctions, determine legal rights, limit agency discretion, and require immediate compliance. Federal courts consider such orders to be the equivalent of federal statutes. In addition, regulations that are enacted to carry out these executive orders have the status of law as long as they reasonably relate to the statutory authority. An administrative action that is carried out under a valid executive order is similar to an agency action that is carried out under a federal statute. In each case, the agency's authority to enact rules and to issue orders comes from Congress.
<snip>
Executive orders have been used to influence issues in hundreds of areas. War-related activities are among the most frequently addressed. For example, in September 1939, President franklin d. roosevelt prescribed regulations governing the enforcement of the neutrality of the United States "in the war then being fought between Germany and France; Poland; and the United Kingdom, India, Australia, and New Zealand" (Exec. Order No. 8,233, 4 Fed. Reg. 3,822). By February 1942, the United States had joined World War II, and Roosevelt had ordered the confinement of Japanese-Americans to internment camps following the bombing of Pearl Harbor in January 1941 (Exec. Order No. 9,066, 7 Fed. Reg. 1,407). In March 1947, following the war, President Harry S. Truman established loyalty review boards to discharge civilian government employees who had been disloyal during the war (Exec. Order No. 9835, 3 C.F.R. 627 (19431948), revoked by Exec. Order No. 10,450, 3 C.F.R. 936 (19491953). In January 1977, following the Vietnam War, President jimmy carter directed the U.S. attorney general to cease investigating and indicting Vietnam War draft evaders (Exec. Order No. 11,967, 42 Fed. Reg. 4,393). In December 1995, President bill clinton ordered the U.S. reserve armed forces into active duty to augment the active armed forces' operations in and around the former Yugoslavia (Bosnia) (Exec. Order No. 12,982, 60 Fed. Reg. 63,895).
<snip>
A search of the archives of EOs having to do with EOs and treaties:
A couple of those EOs having to do with treaties:
Executive Order 11177--Providing for certain arrangements under the Columbia River Treaty
Executive Order 12215--Delegation of Panama Canal functions
There is also this EO from President Clinton, Implementation of Human Rights Treaties (PDF warning).
They also carry the weight of law from one administration to the next unless, of course, the next administration issues an EO (or Presidential Directive) to remove the previous EO (or PD).
You have asked our opinion whether there is any substantive legal difference between an executive order and a presidential directive. As this Office has consistently advised, it is our opinion that there is no substantive difference in the legal effectiveness of an executive order and a presidential directive that is not styled as an executive order. We are further of the opinion that a presidential directive would not automatically lapse upon a change of administration; as with an executive order, unless otherwise specified, a presidential directive would remain effective until subsequent presidential action is taken.
<snip>
Moreover, as with an executive order, a presidential directive would not lose its legal effectiveness upon a change of administration. Rather, in our view, because a presidential directive issues from the Office of the Chief Executive, it would remain in force, unless otherwise specified, pending any future presidential action. Cf. Memorandum for Michael J. Egan, Associate Attorney General, from John M. Harmon, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Proposed Amendments to 28 CFR 16, Subpart B (Apr. 21, 1977) (raising possible concerns about a proposal to delegate to the Deputy Attorney General certain authorities to invoke executive privilege because such a delegation could potentially be inconsistent with a 1969 Memorandum from President Nixon on executive privilege). Indeed, Presidents have frequently used written forms other than executive orders to take actions that were intended to have effect during a subsequent administration. For example, delegations of presidential authority under 3 U.S.C. § 301 have been made pursuant to presidential memoranda. (1) See also, e.g., Establishing a Federal Energy Management Program, 3 Pub. Papers Gerald R. Ford 1015 (Nov. 4, 1976) (including a directive to be carried out for FY 1977).
<snip>
(all bolded added for emphasis)
Yes, EOs can be used to interpret treaties. Check case law rather than statutes without the interpretation of their impact as determined by case law and Solicitors' Opinions.
As already noted upthread: "it's never as simple as people think."
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)that takes place down thread. Sometimes outrage is not enough. You actually need to do some work on the basics.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)The one that notes the CSA has three provisions for changing a drug's scheduling - and those three are Congress, the DEA and the AG office.
The Single Convention on Narcotics has nothing to say about how drugs are scheduled in any particular country - is that the education you're referring to?
The statements, above, that claim the AG cannot reschedule because of our existing treaties is not factual. Is that the education you're referring to?
The fact that this is misrepresented here?
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)He did a great job of making sure he told the truth. Schedule One narcotics are a matter for Congress to decide. And, there is a set of laws undergirding the determinations.
That said, I still call BS because the DEA has changed the schedule on its own without Congressional action. They can do it again. However, Congress is the best way to do it.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)And rejected them?
Because the executive branch has the ability to to reschedule drugs under the CSA.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)And the refusal to consider the rescheduling was one of those bureaucratic bullshit lessons. The DEA referred to the FDA on medical benefit, which referred to the DEA with current scheduling.
This is why the DEA should have marijuana removed from its oversight - because of this continuous abuse of power with that oversight.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)with certain jobs. DEA is tasked with determining the status of drugs. If someone wishes to change the schedule of pot, they petition DEA, who then follow the law on whether they can reschedule pot.
Who else would a citizen petition for rescheduling a drug? EPA? Transportation? Do you understand how this works? Congress writes laws. Agencies interpret and enforce them. Do you see Senators arresting people? No. I wonder why that is.
MindMover
(5,016 posts)AZ Mike
(468 posts)I call weak sauce on this one.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)And use Marijuana as a plus for their campaigns in 2014. If Obama rescheduled MJ that could blow that out of the water for them. We're almost there, I bet after 2014, or when he leaves office they will change it.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)action on an issue until election time. There are sick people who need medicinal marijuana and to play political games with this is cruel.
gulliver
(13,142 posts)If you don't know for a fact that Obama was deliberately saying something he did not know to be true, then that makes you the liar.
You didn't say "I think Obama lies." You didn't say "Obama may be lying." You said "Obama Lies." You can't know that. So I think you, unfortunately, are the one lying.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)From the OP, excerpted from the fdl article:
1. The fdl author, not the OP made the statement
2. Said author left room for the president to be ignorant of his duties rather than lying.
gulliver
(13,142 posts)Your post doesn't completely prove my point why?
frwrfpos
(517 posts)yes his DOJ has the power to absolutely reschedule