Maybe I'm clueless, but isn't Eric Holder just DOING HIS JOB?

[TonyMontana]

I could be wrong about the vagaries of state law versus federal law, but I don't see where the outrage over Eric Holder is coming from.

If pot is illegal because there are federal laws that make it illegal, doesn't it not matter what states vote for? Isn't Holder just doing what he's SUPPOSED to be doing, which is enforcing the law?

Frankly, I see this as a way to call him out on hypocrisy. If he would initiate some criminal charges against Bush and Cheney for illegal wiretaps, wars, and crimes against humanity, that would be nice.

[jaxx]

1. Of course he's just doing his job.

But he is of the Obama administration.....

[RainDog]

11. that's why war criminals went unpunished? because he was doing his job?

in what universe?

don't you get sick of lying to yourself? you certainly aren't convincing anyone else.

[HuckleB]

22. Exactlyl. -eom-

[Xipe Totec]

2. Really? Why isn't John Yoo in jail? nt

[Octafish]

69. Gonzalez and Rove, too.

Gov. Siegelman has a few more names. And DUers have kept score.

[TexasObserver]

3. The former, not the latter.

The government always has discretion in what it enforces and what it doesn't.

Do you remember when this guy named Obama ran for president two years ago?

Do you remember what he said about this topic?

The AG is part of the Executive, which is under the president. If the president wants to be reelected, and we can assume he does, he will get right on this issue or he will lose states like California, Oregon, Washington, et al. Until he stops trying to suck up to the people who will never vote for him, the president will continue to see his standing among HIS voters waver.

[WolverineDG]

4. Funny how people are yelling & screaming over Holder's actions if the CA prop passes

when a few months ago they were cheering him for stopping the Arizona "Papers Please" law.

dg

[Xicano]

14. Good deeds don't excuse bad ones.

n/t

[WolverineDG]

43. It's the same principle

State law cannot pre-empt federal law. You can't be both for it & against it.

dg

[EFerrari]

17. Apples and whoppee cushions.

The AZ law is clearly discriminatory.

[WolverineDG]

45. Both clearly pre-empt federal law

So are you for states being allowed to do this? Or only when it's an issue you agree with?

dg

[Warren Stupidity]

49. Actually there is a very good case that federal laws regarding

intra state sale and use of federally controlled substances are in violation of the 10th amendment. On the other hand the constitution is unambiguous about foreign policy being the within the sovereignty clause, the only issue is does immigration policy fall within foreign policy and that is hardly an issue.

[WolverineDG]

54. But do you really want to open the 10thA door?

I don't think you do.

Points for responding rationally, though.

dg

[EFerrari]

60. But that isn't the only issue, is it?

And you bet, I want the Feds to challenge every single POS discriminatory law that the right wing nuts cases pass in the states.

[Better Believe It]

19. One is a right-wing reactionary Arizona law and the California prop is progressive and democratic.

Do you now understand the difference?

[scheming daemons]

23. The Attorney General is not supposed to be a political position

He's supposed to uphold the law of the land, regardless of whether he agrees with the law or not.

[frylock]

32. that's why bush and cheney are in prison, right?

[scheming daemons]

36. It's not at all clear that Holder could ever get a conviction in any court of those guys

...but that doesn't mean he shouldn't try. I agree with you there.



But just because he isn't doing his job in one case, doesn't mean it is ok for him to not do his job in another.

[frylock]

63. it shows a lack of priorties

[Warren Stupidity]

50. all cabinet positions are political appointments

'the law of the land' and the enforcement of said laws are subject to political interpretation.

[WolverineDG]

44. The same principle is involved

State law cannot pre-empt federal law.

Do *you* now understand the difference?

dg

[Better Believe It]

66. One law is reactionary and the other one isn't. You still don't get it?

[krabigirl]

21. Not everyone. I disagree with SB1070 but I think AZ has the right to pass it.

however, I will refrain from visiting Arizona.

[frylock]

31. yeah, it's funny how people on a supposedly progressive discussion board might feel that way, hunh?

funny how that wouldn't be obvious to someone, you know, unless they weren't really down with progressive ideals. hmmmn....

[WolverineDG]

46. It's the same principle

I guess you're only for it when states pass laws you disagree with. Funny how that works.

dg

[frylock]

64. i'm for a competent department of justice that is capable of prioritizing

[Warren Stupidity]

47. yes indeed we want the feds to intervene on bad laws

on to not intervene on good ones. We want them to appeal bad court decisions, and not appeal good ones. We want the government we elected to represent us.

[WolverineDG]

55. Who gets to decide which laws are "good" & which are "bad?" nt

[Warren Stupidity]

58. Our elected representatives.

[Better Believe It]

67. We usually don't but Wall Street does and corporate America does. Any more questions?

We must challenge the power of this tiny minority and organize in favor of progressive laws are good and against reactionary laws that are bad.

Anything wrong with that or do you think we can't figure out the difference between "good" and "bad" laws so that ought to be left up to the ruling rich to decide?

[elleng]

5. Yes.

Thanks for recognizing the difficulties of governing. Its lost on many here, unfortunately.

:thumbsup:

[Davis_X_Machina]

6. Federal statutes in general...

...tend to pre-empt.

There's a long and winding road here, going back to the ante-bellum conflict between Federal fugitive slave laws and state personal freedom laws.

[bemildred]

7. Nothing required Mr Holder to say anything.

He could have said nothing, and would have been better off for it.

Mr Baca, the LA County Sheriff, was getting pouty on TV here today too.

From those two things I infer the measure has a good chance of passing.

[tridim]

8. I'm mostly upset that he made the announcement prior to the vote.

[Davis_X_Machina]

10. The likely response of the Federal government..

...is something a California voter would want to know prior to casting his or her vote, and know definitively and not through guess or hearsay, though. It's something to take into consideration, even -- or especially -- in the case of casting a 'screw you, feds!' vote.

[laughingliberal]

9. I see nothing that states Holder is obligated to come out with guns blazing on this.

I would also note he's managed well enough to avoid enforcing federal statutes which were violated by the former administration as well as avoiding any vigorous investigation of fraud in our financial institutions.

[dsc]

12. It is beyond hard to believe that the federal prosecutors don't have better things to do with their

time and money given our deficit.

[Odin2005]

13. "I was just doing my job" has been an indefensible excuse since...

...the Nuremberg trials.

Enforcing evil laws makes you evil yourself. You either do the right thing or you are a scumbag.

[scheming daemons]

24. Comparing pot being illegal to nazi atrocities is pretty pathetic....

...

The Attorney General, as part of the executive branch, took an oath to execute the laws of the United States.


He didn't take an oath to ONLY execute the laws that his political constituents agree with.


That's the kind of crap BUSH'S AGs did.

[Odin2005]

28. So you support defending immoral laws?

[scheming daemons]

30. Laws are made in the legislative branch... I'm defending the executive branch doing ITS job

..which is to execute the laws of the United States.


They don't get to pick and choose which laws they execute. Down that road lies Banana Repulicanism.



The Attorney General has no right to be selective about which laws he executes and which he doesn't. And if he does pick and choose, he should be impeached.


"Immoral Law" is a subjective opinion. (I happen to agree with you).

The Attorney General doesn't get to unilaterally make that call.


If he sets that kind of precedent, then we can't bitch when the next REPUBLICAN Attorney General decides not to prosecute abortion clinic vandals because *HE* considers it an "immoral law".



You're smarter than this. Act like it.

[Odin2005]

59. The Judicial Branch struck down the law as unconstitutional.

The Executive would not be "picking and choosing", it would be enforcing the decision of the judicial branch.

[TheKentuckian]

65. Doing my job only gets traction when you do your job consistently.

You don't get to smugly pull it after letting war criminals, civil liberties destroyers, and every form of robberbaron free to rape and pillage and maintain any credibility.

The law becomes a sanctimonious sham. A code to throttle the masses and the expense of a few elites.

Go get a real talking point that has some moral fiber and actual respect for a system of justice and the real human beings it is supposed to serve rather than tired and robotic bullshit that literally spits in the face of justice and makes a mockery of the very spirit of the idea.

[Canuckistanian]

15. Sorry to say, but you're clueless

Holder wasn't OBLIGED to say anything. He CHOSE to say it.

But he made the decision to say it anyways.

[Xicano]

16. Just out of curiosity: Where in the constitution does the federal government claim jurisdiction?

Interstate commerce is what they cite when claiming the controlled substance act has jurisdiction. Now are you going to jump on the federal government's erroneous position that someone growing pot on their own property and selling it to no one is participating in interstate commerce? Because if you take the position of your OP that is exactly what you are saying. And if so I would be interested in hearing how you draw that conclusion.

These laws are a fucking sham, acts do not trump the constitution (See: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0005_0137_ZO.html">Marbury v. Madison). Why else do you think alcohol prohibition was actually a constitutional amendment? Because that's the law on how the federal government gets jurisdiction where they have none. Well, if they didn't have jurisdiction with regard to substance prohibition then, then they don't have now as well. But they are able to get away with it because people are no longer in charge of our country, and those who are in charge are employees of corporate interests.

[whistler162]

29. Article I, Sections 8 and 10; Article 6; and the 10th Amendment

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/lrb/pubs/consthi/03consthiIII051.htm

[Xicano]

37. "Under the Supremacy Clause"

From your link:

"Under the Supremacy Clause, if a state law is preempted by the U.S. Constitution or a federal law or treaty, the state law cannot be enforced."

One problem with this argument. This argument assumes the federal law itself is constitutional. As I pointed out above, the federal law is the controlled substance "act" and acts must be supported by the constitution in order for them to be legal. I gave a link to Marbury v. Madison in case anybody believes acts can trump the constitution where clearly the land mark supreme court case of all land mark supreme court cases makes it clear that acts which conflict with the constitution are null & void.

Now keeping Marbury v. Madison in mind, the 10th amendment makes it clear all powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people, and, the 9th amendment makes it clear that when it comes to people its just the opposite from the federal government with respect to the 10th amendment where they (the feds) need to have their powers enumerated in the constitution, the 9th amendment makes it clear the people do not.

So again, where in the constitution does the federal government claim they have constitutional authority? I already gave that answer too which is the controlled substance "act" of 1970 where the federal government is claiming constitutional authority through the constitution's interstate commerce clause.

Again, how is someone growing pot on their own property and selling it to no one constitute participating in interstate commerce? The answer of course is: Plainly this person isn't participating in commerce at all much less interstate commerce. So again the law is a sham as I have said. And again why else do you think the government got an amendment to the constitution with regard to alcohol prohibition? Because that's the constitutional way the federal government can lawfully have authority. That's why.

[Xicano]

40. The Commerce Clause

If you do not believe it to be as absurd as I make it out to be, then allow me to post this quote regarding the recent supreme court case Gonzales v. Raich:

Link

Most recently, the Commerce Clause was cited in the 2005 decision Gonzales v. Raich. In this case, a California woman sued the Drug Enforcement Administration after her medical marijuana crop was seized and destroyed by Federal agents. Medical marijuana was explicitly made legal under California state law by Proposition 215; however, marijuana is prohibited at the federal level by the Controlled Substances Act.

Even though the woman grew the marijuana strictly for her own consumption and never sold any, >>> the Supreme Court stated that growing one's own marijuana affects the interstate market of marijuana. <<< Whaaaa?? The theory was that the marijuana could enter the stream of interstate commerce, even if it clearly wasn't grown for that purpose and it was unlikely ever to happen (the same reasoning as in the Wickard v. Filburn decision). It therefore ruled that this practice may be regulated by the federal government under the authority of the Commerce Clause.

Now who looks more absurd? Oh that last question is just ripe for DU to respond with all sorts amusing sarcasm.. Ha ha!! lol

But seriously, anyone taking the federal government's point-of-view on this is only supporting something obviously disingenuous with our constitution.



Peace,
Xicano

[Iggo]

18. There's a whoooooooole lotta other shit he should be going after instead...

...and that would also be him just doing his job.

[krabigirl]

20. Um, the prop hasn't even passed first of all, and second of all, no.

This shouldn't be his job. Going after pot smokers and growers? Seriously?

[scheming daemons]

26. Holder didn't write the federal laws... he DID however, take an oath to enforce them

...

[G_j]

52. well he has sure failed on that

unless the oath says he is obligated to not investigate war criminals and banksters.

[krabigirl]

56. So? Seriously, this is a federal priority? What a joke.

[Bluebear]

25. Why hasn't John Yoo been prosecuted?

[scheming daemons]

27. He should be....

[frylock]

33. but he hasn't..

what holder's position on that?

[scheming daemons]

34. That's a valid criticism of Holder

[awoke_in_2003]

35. as much as I want to say...

he is fucked up, logically I have to say "He is just doing his job". If we want to bitch about it, it is up to us to change his job.

[Hawkowl]

38. You're just clueless.... nt

[upi402]

39. no, he is not n/t

[Greyhound]

41. Selective enforcement selected laws is equivalent to lawlessness. n/t

[G_j]

53. +1000

[LWolf]

57. +2000

[Greyhound]

42. Selective enforcement of selected laws is equivalent to lawlessness. n/t

[KansasVoter]

48. Actually you are correct!

[lonestarnot]

51. Well what about the economy based on criminal aspects of pot smokers?

We don't have an economy based on criminal aspects of warmongers. Isn't that a shame?

[asdjrocky]

61. Oh sure.

Eric does his job, when it's something Eric cares about. Prosecuting war crimes? Not so much. Persecuting people for cannabis use? Of course!

Fuck Eric Holder!

[DirkGently]

62. The outrage is over which parts of his job he's willing to pursue. Pot bad, warcrimes ...eh?

[Warren Stupidity]

68. yeah no shit

oh, those selectively unenforced laws? NEVER MIND.