DEA to halt medical marijuana raids

Re: DEA to halt medical marijuana raids

PostBy: Devil505 On: Mon Mar 02, 2009 7:44 am

jpete wrote:GWB just turned it into an art form.


I guess this is where the problem lays. I agree that other Presidents have used them but it was the amount, arrogance & blatancy of GW's use of them that makes the practice dangerous & Un-American in my view. Congress has been cowardly in defending its powers against the Executive for years now, & it's time for them to pass legislation outlawing the legality of these "Signing Statements" which can be badly abused. I'll bet president Obama will end up having few if any, controversial SS's.
Devil505
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Harman
Stove/Furnace Model: TLC-2000

Re: DEA to halt medical marijuana raids

PostBy: jpete On: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:02 am

Devil505 wrote:
jpete wrote:GWB just turned it into an art form.

I'll bet president Obama will end up having few if any, controversial SS's.


You really are an Obama supporter aren't you? "Controversial"?!?!?! Why do you have to use gray language like the? Like when he says "we will create or save 3 million jobs" WTF is that? As long as there are more than 3 million jobs, he can claim success.

Remember, some people didn't find GWB's signing statement "controversial". I don't want the president to use ANY. Grow a pair and agree with me. :D
jpete
 
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Harman Mk II
Coal Size/Type: Stove, Nut, Pea
Other Heating: Dino juice

Re: DEA to halt medical marijuana raids

PostBy: Devil505 On: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:05 am

jpete wrote:I don't want the president to use ANY. Grow a pair and agree with me. :D



I already "Grew a pair" if you'll read my post above. :)


Devil505 wrote:Congress has been cowardly in defending its powers against the Executive for years now, & it's time for them to pass legislation outlawing the legality of these "Signing Statements" which can be badly abused.
Devil505
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Harman
Stove/Furnace Model: TLC-2000


Re: DEA to halt medical marijuana raids

PostBy: jpete On: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:11 am

Devil505 wrote:
jpete wrote:I don't want the president to use ANY. Grow a pair and agree with me. :D



I already "Grew a pair" if you'll read my post above. :)


Devil505 wrote:Congress has been cowardly in defending its powers against the Executive for years now, & it's time for them to pass legislation outlawing the legality of these "Signing Statements" which can be badly abused.


I'd say he was already one for one in the "controversial" column. I guess in D.C., 9000 counts as "no". And "I won" counts as transparency. :roll:

My Administration will initiate new, far-reaching measures to help ensure that every dollar spent in this historic legislation is spent wisely and for its intended purpose. The Federal Government will be held to new standards of transparency and accountability. The legislation includes no earmarks.
Last edited by Richard S. on Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: <removed dead link>
jpete
 
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Harman Mk II
Coal Size/Type: Stove, Nut, Pea
Other Heating: Dino juice

Re: DEA to halt medical marijuana raids

PostBy: Devil505 On: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:17 am

jpete wrote:I'd say he was already one for one in the "controversial" column


& I'd say that it's far from being controversial. (which is always going to be a subjective "Eye of the Beholder" ...."Chocolate cake tastes better than white cake" ...opinion anyway)




Oops......Almost forgot... :P :P :P :P :P
Devil505
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Harman
Stove/Furnace Model: TLC-2000

Re: DEA to halt medical marijuana raids

PostBy: jpete On: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:20 am

See? That's the point. You can't say what you said. Using opaque language is trouble. What you and I find "controversial" are two different things. And Obama is a master at opaque language. I don't trust him as far as I could throw him.
jpete
 
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Harman Mk II
Coal Size/Type: Stove, Nut, Pea
Other Heating: Dino juice

Re: DEA to halt medical marijuana raids

PostBy: pvolcko On: Mon Mar 02, 2009 1:27 pm

First, I said put aside the issue of priorities. :)

Second, fine lets use the migratory Bird Act. It is one thing to fund it differently than other enforcement areas. It is entirely different for the administration to announce or telegraph that "we will no longer be enforcing this law in Michigan because they have the recently passed Canada Goose Poop Eradication law". They would be torn to shreds from all directions. People in other states with Canada goose problems would have an equal protection claim. Enviros and legal professors would have a claim for allowing a state to supercede federal/treaty law. Canada would be in the right to raise complaints and perhaps retaliate with trade or other diplomatic measures.

They aren't merely deemphasizing enforcement, they have said outright that they are not going to enforce against a certain class of illegal drug dealer. This is made all the worse by the fact that the "medical" part of the California medical marijuana laws are a joke. It is notoriously easy to find a doctor willing to issue the necessary prescription and card.

If we want to decriminalize it, then do it through a normal legislative process. This is executive fiat at work. Just because you agree with this particular action doesn't mean you should ignore the potential for future abuse or use on issues you are steadfastly against.
pvolcko
 

Re: DEA to halt medical marijuana raids

PostBy: Devil505 On: Mon Mar 02, 2009 1:40 pm

pvolcko wrote:First, I said put aside the issue of priorities. :)


OK...Similar to discussing Lincoln's last theater visit but saying you can't discuss the assasination.


pvolcko wrote:If we want to decriminalize it, then do it through a normal legislative process. This is executive fiat at work. Just because you agree with this particular action doesn't mean you should ignore the potential for future abuse or use on issues you are steadfastly against.


Funny Paul....I can't remember you posting similar outrage against "Executive Fiat" in reference to GW Bush's many blatant refusals to carry out Congress's laws with his "Signing Statements"???

Examples of the president's signing statements

April 30, 2006

Since taking office in 2001, President Bush has issued signing statements on more than 750 new laws, declaring that he has the power to set aside the laws when they conflict with his legal interpretation of the Constitution. The federal government is instructed to follow the statements when it enforces the laws. Here are 10 examples and the dates Bush signed them:

March 9: Justice Department officials must give reports to Congress by certain dates on how the FBI is using the USA Patriot Act to search homes and secretly seize papers.

Bush's signing statement: The president can order Justice Department officials to withhold any information from Congress if he decides it could impair national security or executive branch operations.

Dec. 30, 2005: US interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.

Bush's signing statement: The president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.

Dec. 30: When requested, scientific information ''prepared by government researchers and scientists shall be transmitted [to Congress] uncensored and without delay."

Bush's signing statement: The president can tell researchers to withhold any information from Congress if he decides its disclosure could impair foreign relations, national security, or the workings of the executive branch.

Aug. 8: The Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its contractors may not fire or otherwise punish an employee whistle-blower who tells Congress about possible wrongdoing.

Bush's signing statement: The president or his appointees will determine whether employees of the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can give information to Congress.

Dec. 23, 2004: Forbids US troops in Colombia from participating in any combat against rebels, except in cases of self-defense. Caps the number of US troops allowed in Colombia at 800.

Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive branch will construe the law ''as advisory in nature."

Dec. 17: The new national intelligence director shall recruit and train women and minorities to be spies, analysts, and translators in order to ensure diversity in the intelligence community.

Bush's signing statement: The executive branch shall construe the law in a manner consistent with a constitutional clause guaranteeing ''equal protection" for all. (In 2003, the Bush administration argued against race-conscious affirmative-action programs in a Supreme Court case. The court rejected Bush's view.)

Oct. 29: Defense Department personnel are prohibited from interfering with the ability of military lawyers to give independent legal advice to their commanders.

Bush's signing statement: All military attorneys are bound to follow legal conclusions reached by the administration's lawyers in the Justice Department and the Pentagon when giving advice to their commanders.

Aug. 5: The military cannot add to its files any illegally gathered intelligence, including information obtained about Americans in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches.

Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can tell the military whether or not it can use any specific piece of intelligence.

Nov. 6, 2003: US officials in Iraq cannot prevent an inspector general for the Coalition Provisional Authority from carrying out any investigation. The inspector general must tell Congress if officials refuse to cooperate with his inquiries.

Bush's signing statement: The inspector general ''shall refrain" from investigating anything involving sensitive plans, intelligence, national security, or anything already being investigated by the Pentagon. The inspector cannot tell Congress anything if the president decides that disclosing the information would impair foreign relations, national security, or executive branch operations.

Nov. 5, 2002: Creates an Institute of Education Sciences whose director may conduct and publish research ''without the approval of the secretary [of education] or any other office of the department."

Bush's signing statement: The president has the power to control the actions of all executive branch officials, so ''the director of the Institute of Education Sciences shall [be] subject to the supervision and direction of the secretary of education."

SOURCE: Charlie Savage

http://www.ask.com/bar?q=Bush+signing+statements&page=1&qsrc=0&zoom=&ab=5&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.boston.com%2Fnews%2Fnation%2Fwashington%2Farticles%2F2006%2F04%2F30%2Fexamples_of_the_presidents_signing_statements%2F
This link is broken, either the page no longer exists or there is some other issue like a typo.





Can you give me a link to any of your outrages then???


pvolcko wrote:Just because you agree with this particular action doesn't mean you should ignore the potential for future abuse or use on issues you are steadfastly against.

Maybe you need to follow you own advice! ;)


(please don't torture the English language further in an attempt to claim that your point isn't EXACTLY refuted by my point. Why are you suddenly outraged by "Executive Fiat" now, but you never made a peep about it b4?....I submit, for the same reason you favored bailouts b4 but are against them now....Because a Democrat is in the White House now.

Your outrage is hollow & totally partisan. :nono: :devil:
Devil505
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Harman
Stove/Furnace Model: TLC-2000

Re: DEA to halt medical marijuana raids

PostBy: pvolcko On: Mon Mar 02, 2009 7:46 pm

Way to deflect, Devil. Given that Obama is hope and change personified, I thought maybe you'd be upset by his resorting to a Bush-like abuse of executive authority. Apparently though you'd rather cast unfounded aspersions on me and stick yet more pins in the BushCo voodoo doll.

I'll bite. When did I favor the bailouts? I was against the individual major bank/financial institution bailouts. On TARP I was at best conflicted and just barely willing to give the benefit of the doubt for the first round. I was very much in favor of the pushback house rupublicans and some blue dog dems exhibited during the debates on it. I was against the hurry up and rush aspect of it (much as I was against the same aspect of the recent stimulus bill process). Regardless, TARP 1 wasn't an example executive fiat or overreach given that congress was very much involved with its drafting and passing, including in not demanding money dispersal process definitions and tight oversight be included in the bill that was passed.

Bush did plenty of things I was against during his presidency. I don't know if I posted about them all here, some I'm sure I have. I know for sure I posted about them on another political mailing list I belong to. I'm not providing links. I don't feel the need to prove myself with that particular effort.

On the topic of signing statements, I didn't keep up with these very much. I know many greatly disliked Bush's use of them, but I also never heard of any practical effects of his putting a signing statement into action that was demonstrably wrong. To be fair to your point, I'll review the ones you quoted and respond with if I think they were reasonable or were executive oversteps, some may not be possible given these are summaries of the laws and signing statements and thus missing much needed context and detail.

March 9: Depends. A lot of myth surrounds the Patriot Act and what it does and doesn't allow. That aside, this depends on who he was reporting to. If it was a select committee and not an open session full committee then I don't think it matters much and would have been an overreach. If indeed the law in question was for the executive to report to an open session or full committee then it is certainly reasonable to limit some information (though I'd be in favor of that information being presented to select select, closed door committee).

Dec 30: Bush is right. Any President should reserve the right to authorize torture or merely enhanced interrogation techniques. I'd expect and want Obama to issue the same statement. This isn't overstep, it is recognition of duty and constitutional powers. It is silly for congress or for that matter the judiciary to try and proscribe use of these measures under all circumstances. That said, if such measures are used I think it should be reported to congressional leadership very soon after. If they decide to pursue impeachment proceedings then they can do so. Part of making the decision to use torture must include accountability.

Dec 30: The short answer: I agree, it was a ?Bush overstep. The longer answer: The quote provided for the law in question leaves me highly suspicious of what preceded it. That said, I can empathize with the desire for uncensored reports, however I'm not sure what constitutes an uncensored scientific report. These reports go through many revisions before they are handed over to the White House, there they get further editing. Whose to say at which point along the editing chain the report reflected the nearest to absolute truth? While we may all argue that edits done at the White House may skew the truth of a report, that overlooks the fact that political appointees and staffers were long before already involved with the creation and editing of the document. It also presupposes that the scientists who contributed to it were "pure" in political intent, which is questionable to say the least. If congress wants uncensored reports, they must know they will never get them, even if the report goes straight from NASA or the EPA or DoE to their hands without any White House people touching it. Ultimately, I think the only answer is to have all documents and all revisions made available electronically to congress and the american people. Companies do this all the time with source code and document repositories, the same can and should be done for executive and congressional documents. Short of that, all efforts should be made to furnish the agency issues, pre-white house report, even though the request for it is highly suspect in my mind.

Aug 8: Without knowing more, I'm with Bush on this one. First of all, don't federal whistle-blower statutes already cover these employees? Second, "possible wrongdoing" is a very broad category. If any malcontent with a trumped up set of complaints can go take their "case" to a congresscritter and get their job protected as a "whistleblower" with information on "possible wrongdoing" then the executive looses a great deal of authority over their agencies and employment practices.

Dec 23: Bush is right on this score. Congress doesn't get to direct military operations, certainly not down to the level of setting troop caps and the like. If they want to influence military programs and policy they get to through the budget process, through confirmations of various appointees, through hearings and building public support for their positions, and consultation with the President. If they don't like the way Bush handled fighting drug cartels and terrorists in Columbia then they should have defunded the programs instead of trying this BS back-seat generaling.

Dec 17: I'll chalk this as an overstep for Bush. However, it doesn't strike me as being necessary. Translators are often female and often of varied ethnic backgrounds, particularly now with the new focus on Middle East, North African, and NK intelligence work. Same goes for spies. I'd suspect many minorities have been brought on board over the last 8 years. Seems like posturing by congress and needless antagonism by Bush.

Dec 29: I'd side with Bush on this one. Not because I necessarily agree with his position on this, but because I have no damned clue what congress was doing getting involved.

Aug 5: I'm wondering what the difference is between "adding to its files" and "use" of intelligence information. I'm not going to give a yea or nea here. No where near enough info or context.

Nov 6: Tentatively I'd call this a Bush overreach. Would need more info. Particular interest in the "shall refrain" quote, was he only reiterating some provision in the new law or existing law that defines a boundary for what the IG could get into and would thus be proper for officials to withhold information about. But overall, I agree the statement seems to be an overreach.

Nov 5: Bush is right. Seems like congressional overreach to establish a position (that isn't an inspector general like position) that has independence from supervisors on a key part of their job and potentially their budget, in this case carrying out and publishing research.


So, I called 5 in favor of Bush, 1 iffy, 1 no opinion, and 3 bush oversteps. Note, these are all in relation to new laws which didn't have decades of case law and enforcement provisions backing them up. In this case we're talking about long established federal law which the Obama administration is deciding to not enforce and in so doing is creating an unequal protection under law (some dealers are free and clear and others aren't).

So how about not deflecting from the topic? Put the microscope on Obama and Holder, instead of Bush, for a change.
pvolcko
 

Re: DEA to halt medical marijuana raids

PostBy: Devil505 On: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:46 pm

pvolcko wrote:So how about not deflecting from the topic? Put the microscope on Obama and Holder, instead of Bush, for a change.


I'll read your long, thoughtful response when I have some time later Paul as I'm going to shake down my TLC right now. I just wanted to jump in quickly & make my basic point which is that what you call deflection is actually the very point of this whole discussion, which is:
Hypocrisy of Anti-Obama Republicans who have SUDDENLY found their fiscal responsibility (after 8 long years of having NONE) & SUDDENLY rail against "Executive Fiat" after having no problems with a Republican President "Thumbing his nose" at the Congress & the people & playing "KING" for 8 long years.
Now, all you can cling to is President Obama's promise of change (from Bush policies) & try to twist that into a promise of change from all prior administration's policies (including successful Democratic ones like Clinton), which is simply an obvious attempt at deception & one that was strongly rejected last November by the voters.
You accusation that I am "Deflecting" is, (in actuality) an obvious attempt to deflect YOUR hypocrisy on this new found outrage you have voiced.,

I am not rehashing the Bush years, but merely pointing out the hypocrisy (mentioned above) of suddenly being outraged at a Democrat, where no such outrage was voiced before when Republicans were in control.

I'll return to be more specific, but that is my main point & I would still love to see links where you voiced righteous indignation at Republican "Executive Fiat" decision in the past. Without such earlier posts, any honest reader of your current outrage would just chalk it up to abject partisanship in that it's only a problem (ruling by Executive Fiat) when done by a President you disagree with.
Last edited by Devil505 on Mon Mar 02, 2009 10:50 pm, edited 11 times in total.
Devil505
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Harman
Stove/Furnace Model: TLC-2000

Re: DEA to halt medical marijuana raids

PostBy: stockingfull On: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:50 pm

Good thread.

I guess my bottom line is that, whether by establishing enforcement priorities or by signing statements and the like, the Executive has inherent and profound influence on the way our society works every day.

If, for example, the Executive wanted to show how warrantless wiretaps can prevent future terrorist attacks, he just does it and then claims the causative benefit. If, on the other hand, an Executive wanted to demonstrate that "looking the other way" on certain notoriously futile drug laws won't bring immediate disease and pestilence, that Executive can alter enforcement priorities and then use the experience to refute the doomsayers when it's time to drop the other shoe legislatively.

And, while we're talking about the "obligation to enforce" or such like, doesn't the 9-yr Bernie Madoff episode in the SEC more or less end the discussion about whether there's some across-the-board obligation to enforce statutes on the books? Am I missing something here, or is it naive to the point of folly to think that there isn't ALWAYS an inherent prioritizing involved in enforcement decisions at all levels of gov't?
stockingfull
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Yellow Flame
Stove/Furnace Model: W.A. 150 Stoker Furnace

Re: DEA to halt medical marijuana raids

PostBy: Devil505 On: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:41 pm

pvolcko wrote:Way to deflect, Devil. Given that Obama is hope and change personified, I thought maybe you'd be upset by his resorting to a Bush-like abuse of executive authority.


No deflection at all Paul & your characterization that President Obama is "resorting to a Bush-like abuse of executive authority'"....is a patently absurd, strictly partisan attack.

In regards to the original bailout from Bush & Paulson you said:
pvolcko wrote:I was against the hurry up and rush aspect of it

That may be possible Paul, but can you point to posts where you were against it? (or were you FOR it before you were AGAINST it? :lol: )

pvolcko wrote:Bush did plenty of things I was against during his presidency. I don't know if I posted about them all here, some I'm sure I have.

I remember NO SUCH POSTS.....If you can direct me to such posts I will gladly concede my error. What Bush policies (specifically) were you against?
(Here's a thread I started disagreeing with President Obama Should Timothy Geithner Be Confirmed?)

pvolcko wrote:I'm not providing links. I don't feel the need to prove myself with that particular effort.

No comment necessary! (I'm taking my ball & going home!) ;)

pvolcko wrote:On the topic of signing statements, I didn't keep up with these very much.

You certainly seem to be "keeping up" with Presidential decisions now!......Why is that? (because a Democrat is President perhaps?)

pvolcko wrote:I know many greatly disliked Bush's use of them, but I also never heard of any practical effects of his
putting a signing statement into action that was demonstrably wrong.


Isn't that the very "Ruling by Executive Fiat" that bothers you so badly now?......What's the difference?

pvolcko wrote:To be fair to your point, I'll review the ones you quoted and respond with if I think they were reasonable or were executive oversteps, some may not be possible given these are summaries of the laws and signing statements and thus missing much needed context and detail.


Talk about deflection Paul, the basis of this whole discussion is the concept of "Ruling By Executive Fiat" being objectionable to you, right? How does a specific discussion on the merits of each such decision reached, change your outrage at the principle (Executive Fiat ruling) that you voiced so eloquently in your "Potential future abuse" warning below?


pvolcko wrote:If we want to decriminalize it, then do it through a normal legislative process. (my emphasis) This is executive fiat at work. Just because you agree with this particular action doesn't mean you should ignore the potential for future abuse or use on issues you are steadfastly against.



Come on Paul...Can't you just admit that it at least "Appears" hypocritical for you to be outraged now, (at a Democrat you accuse of "ruling by fiat") but not uttering a single word against the same thing when done by a Republican President?
Last edited by Devil505 on Mon Mar 02, 2009 10:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Devil505
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Harman
Stove/Furnace Model: TLC-2000

Re: DEA to halt medical marijuana raids

PostBy: Devil505 On: Mon Mar 02, 2009 10:44 pm

jpete wrote:See? That's the point. You can't say what you said.


Sure I can! (in fact....I just DID!) :P :P :lol:
Devil505
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Harman
Stove/Furnace Model: TLC-2000

Re: DEA to halt medical marijuana raids

PostBy: KLook On: Mon Mar 02, 2009 11:02 pm

I will guess he will say it is okay as long as the pres. is the "articulate and Intelligent" Savior. ??

Kevin
KLook
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Harman VF 3000
Coal Size/Type: rice, bagged, Blaschak
Stove/Furnace Make: Harman (Back In Maine)
Stove/Furnace Model: VF 3000

Re: DEA to halt medical marijuana raids

PostBy: pvolcko On: Wed Mar 04, 2009 2:52 pm

I'm not going to take the time to perform a search of this forum, read through dozens of prior posts, and attempt to prove to you my past
disagreements with Bush. I'm certain they are there because I know what my positions are and how they have changed over the past several years. I'll leave it to those who are reading this discussion and perhaps past ones to make their own conclusions on our relative partisanship and penchant for engaging in partisan hack hypocrisy.

I'll end with a link to what I've heard is a very interesting advocacy documentary on marijuana legalization. My copy is on order and I'll post my thoughts on it once I've watched it.

http://www.amazon.com/High-True-Tale-American-Marijuana/dp/B001GFBO0S/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1236192044&sr=8-2
pvolcko