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

[revolutionman]

The same argument being used to claim that drug laws are constitutional can be used to argue that killing 20 million people is constitutional if the supreme court says so.

 

[Alawn]

These are not the same things. In one it is a law saying the government can't do something. The president shouldn't ignore that. But laws making the actions of citizens illegal can be ignored. The executive branch can choose not to prosecute certain crimes.

 

[Thrashertm]

These are not the same things. In one it is a law saying the government can't do something. The president shouldn't ignore that. But laws making the actions of citizens illegal can be ignored. The executive branch can choose not to prosecute certain crimes.

Can they choose not to prosecute torture?

 

[revolutionman]

take the 10th amendment,

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

okay so under the tenth amendment drug laws violate the constitution.

The apply the Supreme court decision that overturns the tenth amendment.

Now you have to contend with the 9th Amendment.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

In this case, the "commerce clause" used by the Supreme Court to justify drug prohibition, is being used to deny the 10th amendment rights of the states and the people.

In terms of Constitutional Law, it might be a stretch, but much less than using the interstate commerce clause to allow the government to terrorize the people.

 

[Thrashertm]

take the 10th amendment,

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

okay so under the tenth amendment drug laws violate the constitution.

The apply the Supreme court decision that overturns the tenth amendment.

Now you have to contend with the 9th Amendment.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

In this case, the "commerce clause" used by the Supreme Court to justify drug prohibition, is being used to deny the 10th amendment rights of the states and the people.

In terms of Constitutional Law, it might be a stretch, but much less than using the interstate commerce clause to allow the government to terrorize the people.

I'm not arguing the constitutionality of drug laws (I agree that they are unconstitutional), I'm just musing about whether or not it is good or proper for a President to choose which laws that Congress passes are Constitutional.

 

[revolutionman]

i think it depends on which laws they are. If a law falls outside of the jurisdiction of the federal government, then a President has a duty not to enforce those laws.

If The laws are constitutional, then the president has the duty to uphold them.

The Supreme Court unfortunately is mired in partisan political hackery can seems to fail rather regularly at making objective legal decisions. As long as that remains true, everyone needs to take their rulings with a grain of salt.

 

[Thrashertm]

i think it depends on which laws they are. If a law falls outside of the jurisdiction of the federal government, then a President has a duty not to enforce those laws.

If The laws are constitutional, then the president has the duty to uphold them.

The Supreme Court unfortunately is mired in partisan political hackery can seems to fail rather regularly at making objective legal decisions. As long as that remains true, everyone needs to take their rulings with a grain of salt.

I feel like I keep hearing the same response, which is essentially, it's OK for the president to decide which laws are enforced. So, is it OK if Obama doesn't prosecute Bush/Cheney and the CIA for torture and other war crimes?

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

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.

Excuse me but the "drug war" is unconstitutional!

-t

 

[fisharmor]

I feel like I keep hearing the same response, which is essentially, it's OK for the president to decide which laws are enforced. So, is it OK if Obama doesn't prosecute Bush/Cheney and the CIA for torture and other war crimes?

Well, I'll keep it where you want it, on the rule of law.
On a philosophical level I would say no, it is not OK for the president to decide which laws get enforced and which don't.

For instance, one thing that drives me up the wall is the fact that throughout this nation, law enforcement officers are given carte blanche when it comes to enforcing traffic law.

According to Hayek, the rule of law is the concept that we as citizens will always be able to anticipate the actions of government. So the cop who doesn't hand out hundreds of speeding tickets per day, and the president who decides not to enforce certain laws, are IMO violating the rule of law.

There's a law on the books, and they are enforcing it selectively, meaning we live under a capricious government, and that spells tyranny.

But there's also the economic view: I hate speeding tickets, and I'll gladly violate the rule of law if it saves me $200. So would everyone else, no matter how virtuous.

Is that morally right? No, but it's not going to change, either - at least not in the manner prescribed for us.

So when RP talks about selective enforcement, yes, it does prompt a little indignation. But it's the same indignation I'm sure corporate execs feel when there's a whistleblower, or maybe the commander at Auschwitz would have felt if his subordinate refused to refill the Zyklon-B dispenser.

What's going on is wrong, whether we're talking about torture or the war on drugs or any other Revolution topics. If RP was president, he'd have the already established caprice at his disposal. And he's promising to use that caprice to refuse to do what is ethically wrong and technically illegal.

And I'm sure he'd tell you all of this as well. I think the man's best quality is that he is able to weigh heavy issues, that he always ends up taking a position, and that if that position is in some way morally wrong, he admits it. Notice how when it comes to federal partial birth abortion bans, he says outright that he believes that the process used is legally and morally incorrect, but that he sees a greater wrong which he can help mitigate.

Any other legislator wouldn't get beyond pontificating about how a particular bill is the only correct course of action and the alternative is complete breakdown of civilization.

So to answer your question:
Constitutional? Yes, for the reasons other posters listed.
Adhering to the rule of law? No.
Do I want it to happen? Yes, I think it's the only thing that will work at this point.

 

[Alawn]

Can they choose not to prosecute torture?

By citizens? Yes

By the government? No

 

[klamath]

Actually you have a very good point. Consitutionally if congress passes the law and the SCOTUS deems it constitutional the president is constitutionally required to enforce it. He has to follow the rule of law or the constitution is just a God***** piece of paper. Sure he can refuse to up hold that law and have it go to the supreme court again. However if he is ruled against he must follow the verdict. The president cannot just pick and choose what laws he wants to enforce and create an entirely different picture of the American legal system by doing this. Sure we all believe RP as president would do a good job of selecting the laws to follow but we sure as hell would scream when the next president that didn't have our same beliefs used the precedent against us.
This is why we need to change congress as well and not rely on winning only one branch of government.

 

[CUnknown]

No, it is clearly not acceptable for the President to refuse to prosecute violators of federal drug laws. That really goes without saying, and Ron Paul would agree that the President cannot pick and choose which laws he will enforce.

But, we are missing a very important point on this argument. As it stands now, federal agents are given large amounts of funding to go into foreign countries to seek out and destroy coca plants and seize the assets of the farmers and drug cartels. Ron Paul would put a stop to this. These coca farmers aren't violating the laws of the United States by growing their product in their own country, are they? So, that aspect of the drug war would be stopped immediately.

Federal raids on people inside the US would stop as well. It's one thing to refuse to prosecute drug offenders who have already been caught (which Ron Paul would not do, I assume), but its quite another to go out actively looking for these people and spending tons of money doing it. It's within the President's authority to spend this money elsewhere, such as on education and treatment, rather than fund agents to bust down people's doors.

Also, Ron Paul would ask Congress to change the laws, but that's another issue.

The point is, there are multiple ways to enforce the drug laws. There are federal laws that make doing drugs illegal, but there aren't laws that mandate the President to take certain approaches to enforce those laws. The President can enforce them however he sees fit-- such as through education rather than aggressive seizure.

 

[Jeremy]

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 court has also ruled that the government can be racist. The court is just a group of people that make decisions... they are not divine beings.

 

[Thrashertm]

Well, I'll keep it where you want it, on the rule of law.
On a philosophical level I would say no, it is not OK for the president to decide which laws get enforced and which don't.

For instance, one thing that drives me up the wall is the fact that throughout this nation, law enforcement officers are given carte blanche when it comes to enforcing traffic law.

According to Hayek, the rule of law is the concept that we as citizens will always be able to anticipate the actions of government. So the cop who doesn't hand out hundreds of speeding tickets per day, and the president who decides not to enforce certain laws, are IMO violating the rule of law.

There's a law on the books, and they are enforcing it selectively, meaning we live under a capricious government, and that spells tyranny.

But there's also the economic view: I hate speeding tickets, and I'll gladly violate the rule of law if it saves me $200. So would everyone else, no matter how virtuous.

Is that morally right? No, but it's not going to change, either - at least not in the manner prescribed for us.

So when RP talks about selective enforcement, yes, it does prompt a little indignation. But it's the same indignation I'm sure corporate execs feel when there's a whistleblower, or maybe the commander at Auschwitz would have felt if his subordinate refused to refill the Zyklon-B dispenser.

What's going on is wrong, whether we're talking about torture or the war on drugs or any other Revolution topics. If RP was president, he'd have the already established caprice at his disposal. And he's promising to use that caprice to refuse to do what is ethically wrong and technically illegal.

And I'm sure he'd tell you all of this as well. I think the man's best quality is that he is able to weigh heavy issues, that he always ends up taking a position, and that if that position is in some way morally wrong, he admits it. Notice how when it comes to federal partial birth abortion bans, he says outright that he believes that the process used is legally and morally incorrect, but that he sees a greater wrong which he can help mitigate.

Any other legislator wouldn't get beyond pontificating about how a particular bill is the only correct course of action and the alternative is complete breakdown of civilization.

So to answer your question:
Constitutional? Yes, for the reasons other posters listed.
Adhering to the rule of law? No.
Do I want it to happen? Yes, I think it's the only thing that will work at this point.

Good answer. Thank you.

 

[Thrashertm]

No, it is clearly not acceptable for the President to refuse to prosecute violators of federal drug laws. That really goes without saying, and Ron Paul would agree that the President cannot pick and choose which laws he will enforce.

But, we are missing a very important point on this argument. As it stands now, federal agents are given large amounts of funding to go into foreign countries to seek out and destroy coca plants and seize the assets of the farmers and drug cartels. Ron Paul would put a stop to this. These coca farmers aren't violating the laws of the United States by growing their product in their own country, are they? So, that aspect of the drug war would be stopped immediately.

Federal raids on people inside the US would stop as well. It's one thing to refuse to prosecute drug offenders who have already been caught (which Ron Paul would not do, I assume), but its quite another to go out actively looking for these people and spending tons of money doing it. It's within the President's authority to spend this money elsewhere, such as on education and treatment, rather than fund agents to bust down people's doors.

Also, Ron Paul would ask Congress to change the laws, but that's another issue.

The point is, there are multiple ways to enforce the drug laws. There are federal laws that make doing drugs illegal, but there aren't laws that mandate the President to take certain approaches to enforce those laws. The President can enforce them however he sees fit-- such as through education rather than aggressive seizure.

Ah, the funding idea is a good one. I like it.

 

[Kraig]

Sorry guys but it seems to me that this thread is a good example of people glorifying the constitution and so called rule of law to the point that they value the piece of paper or nostalgia of it over the principles it was meant to stand for. The constitution and are legal framework were never perfect, not now, not 200 years ago.