How was RP's promise to end the Drug War constitutional?

[Thrashertm]

I am a big RP supporter, but there's something I don't understand on his position to end the drug war.

As I recall from the election, RP said that if he was elected he would order the Attorney General to stop enforcing the federal drug laws. Doesn't that undermine the rule of law if the president is just picking and choosing which ones he follows?

For example, apparently Bush decided that he didn't need to follow laws against torture or warrantless surveillance. How is Bush's position different from RP's except that obviously I like the idea of ending the Drug War and hate the torture and illegal wiretaps?

Thank you, and discuss.

 

[Original_Intent]

Laws against torture and warrantless searches = constitutionally supported laws.

"Drug war" laws = no consitutional authority.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

FWIW-Among other things, the drug war violates the 10th amendment.

 

[dannno]

The Federal Government does not have jurisdiction in this area.

The whole torture comparison is apples and oranges, and in fact in BOTH cases the Federal Government is doing something not specifically outlined in the Constitution. The Federal Government can only do things that are specifically outlined in the Constitution, everything else is reserved for the states (see reference to 10th Amendment above).. though I don't think that means that the states can torture

 

[Thrashertm]

Laws against torture and warrantless searches = constitutionally supported laws.

"Drug war" laws = no consitutional authority.

Seems like the court has ruled that various drug laws are Constitutional, even though I think it's fucked up.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/szasz1.htm

Should the President be making decisions about what is or isn't Constitutional, or is that the job of the Supreme Court? Isn't the President charged with executing the laws that Congress has passed?

 

[South Park Fan]

Seems like the court has ruled that various drug laws are Constitutional, even though I think it's fucked up.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/szasz1.htm

Should the President be making decisions about what is or isn't Constitutional, or is that the job of the Supreme Court? Isn't the President charged with executing the laws that Congress has passed?

The Supreme Court made the decision, now let them enforce it.

 

[Thrashertm]

The Federal Government does not have jurisdiction in this area.

The whole torture comparison is apples and oranges, and in fact in BOTH cases the Federal Government is doing something not specifically outlined in the Constitution. The Federal Government can only do things that are specifically outlined in the Constitution, everything else is reserved for the states (see reference to 10th Amendment above).. though I don't think that means that the states can torture

I agree that it's unconstitutional, I am just questioning the notion of having a president decide which laws he wants to follow. For the last 30+ years no president has protected our sovereignty in terms of our borders. Millions of people have illegally entered the country while the government, including the president, winks and nods and lets it happen.

Should the president be able to decide to ignore the drug laws but then he MUST enforce border laws?

 

[Thrashertm]

The Supreme Court made the decision, now let them enforce it.

Yeah seriously. I would hope that they all get severely painful glaucoma for which marijuana is the only remedy.

 

[dannno]

Seems like the court has ruled that various drug laws are Constitutional, even though I think it's fucked up.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/szasz1.htm

Should the President be making decisions about what is or isn't Constitutional, or is that the job of the Supreme Court? Isn't the President charged with executing the laws that Congress has passed?

The President swears an oath to uphold the Constitution, (the real one, not the one the judges pretend to uphold for political reasons) so yes, that is his job.

 

[Danke]

If you think it is constitutional for the federal government to outlaw a drug, why did they need a constitutional amendment to outlaw alcohol?

 

[Thrashertm]

The President swears an oath to uphold the Constitution, (the real one, not the one the judges pretend to uphold for political reasons) so yes, that is his job.

From http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article2

"he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"

So upholding Congress' laws which have been deemed Constitutional would seem to be in keeping with defending the Constitution.

 

[Thrashertm]

If you think it is constitutional for the federal government to outlaw a drug, why did they need a constitutional amendment to outlaw alcohol?

I don't think drug laws are constitutional. My argument is just that what gives you, me, or the POTUS the right to decide what is or isn't Constitutional? According to the Constitution, that's the job of the Supreme Court, and the president is supposed to abide by the SCOTUS' rulings.

 

[Danke]

I don't think drug laws are constitutional. My argument is just that what gives you, me, or the POTUS the right to decide what is or isn't Constitutional? According to the Constitution, that's the job of the Supreme Court, and the president is supposed to abide by the SCOTUS' rulings.

O.K. So he ends enforcement, then it is up to someone to take him to court to get him to enforce these so-called laws.

 

[Objectivist]

Seems like the court has ruled that various drug laws are Constitutional, even though I think it's fucked up.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/szasz1.htm

Should the President be making decisions about what is or isn't Constitutional, or is that the job of the Supreme Court? Isn't the President charged with executing the laws that Congress has passed?

I seem to remember a time where there was no prohibition of drugs.

 

[krazy kaju]

The President is not forced to enforce unconstitutional laws.

 

[Objectivist]

The rights in the Constitution are for the People, then the State and what's left is for the Federal Government. The government should have never made the choice of what drugs are acceptable or not.

 

[Thrashertm]

O.K. So he ends enforcement, then it is up to someone to take him to court to get him to enforce these so-called laws.

Hmmm, I hadn't thought of that. Maybe that resolves this conundrum for me.

 

[purplechoe]

The President is not forced to enforce unconstitutional laws.

this

 

[Imperial]

Seems like the court has ruled that various drug laws are Constitutional, even though I think it's fucked up.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/szasz1.htm

Should the President be making decisions about what is or isn't Constitutional, or is that the job of the Supreme Court? Isn't the President charged with executing the laws that Congress has passed?

Until Andrew Jackson presidents would only veto bills on constitutional grounds. However, on the same hand vetoes can be overrode, which would indicate the ultimate primacy of Congress.

 

[OptionsTrader]

Seems like the court has ruled that various drug laws are Constitutional, even though I think it's fucked up.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/szasz1.htm

Should the President be making decisions about what is or isn't Constitutional, or is that the job of the Supreme Court? Isn't the President charged with executing the laws that Congress has passed?

A court's opinion does not change the fact that a law is inherently unconstitutional.

"Unconstitutional" is not an opinion.