Should Eric Holder treat the AZ immigration law and the CA pot law the same?

[KansasVoter]

Should Holder allow the voters to decide the immigration policy in AZ and allow the voters to decide the marijuana policy in CA or should he enforce then differently.

[Lyric]

1. The AZ law is unconstitutional. The CA law is not.

[TexasObserver]

2. THIS.

[blondeatlast]

3. +1. nt

[tularetom]

5. You're correct about the AZ law but the CA law doesn't exist yet

Actually we won't know about either law until they are tested in court, but I'm pretty sure when that happens the result will be as you suggest.

[Lyric]

7. Fair enough. How about the "proposed" CA law does not appear to be unconstitutional?

I can't see how it violates anyone's rights, or steps on any constitutionally-protected federal authority. Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce, but this law is about INTRAstate commerce--and as such, it's solely within the boundaries of California's state sovereignty.

I believe that if this law passes, and someone in California who's legally protected under the statute gets raided by the feds, the appeal process in federal court will eventually end with a win for California.

[tularetom]

10. I agree but in the short term

Holders threat to enforce federal controlled substance laws after the passage of Prop 19 is empty bluster.

There is not a sufficient federal presence in the state to mount a user-level enforcement effort and they aren't going to get any help from cash strapped local law enforcement agencies.

It's ludicrous to imagine the FBI running around busting kids smoking weed while white collar felons and war criminals get a free pass.

Assuming this proposition passes, the adjudication will be an interesting test of the right wing's beloved 10th Amendment.

[KansasVoter]

13. So holder should only enforce laws in the constitution???

[TheWraith]

4. Define "should."

Are they equal? No. However he is legally obligated to defend and enforce federal law. Therefore to do is job, he has to go after both.

[treestar]

6. The voters decide then the courts can interpret even what the

voters want to be unconstitutional. We do not have pure majority rule.

If the voters and the representatives wanted to declare Wiccan the national religion, even as a large majority, they can't have it, due to the first amendment.

[Ichingcarpenter]

8. Everything should be decided after

The US Senate or the US Supreme Court
decides what is BEST.. Since they tell you what
is BEST for this Nation.



LOL!

[pampango]

9. Is Holder's job to enforce federal law until it is changed or reinterpreted by the courts? Or

does he get to decide which federal laws to enforce and which to let slide (as a perk of his party winning the election)?

[EFerrari]

11. Eric Holder should stay out of CA elections. n/t

[krabigirl]

12. Holder should stay out of ca and az's business. I cant stand sb 1070 btw.