"The president believes that federal resources should not be used to circumvent state laws" and expects his appointees to follow that policy, Schapiro said

So Obama is a supporter of States Rights?

juris_imprudent wrote at 3.1.2009 12:41pm:

The problem as I see it is that the Administration is still technically bound to enforce the federal laws as they stand = and state law must conform to that.

If a local DA can use prosecutorial discretion as a reason for not prosecuting some violations of various laws, why can't the POTUS tell the USAG to exercise prosecutorial discretion the way POTUS wants him to?

The problem as I see it is that the Administration is still technically bound to enforce the federal laws as they stand = and state law must conform to that. The appropriate course of action to match policy and law is to change the federal law. Of course they won't repeal the whole lot of federal anti-drug laws, so they could just de-schedule marijuana. Will they do that, or just create a legal limbo?


The federal executive branch always has had discretion as to how to spend scarce federal law enforcement resources. There are more serious federal law enforcement problems to confront than medical marijuana use. Law enforcement priorities are usually set by way of policy rather than by changes in the law.

This is certainly a great move for America, but it's not nearly enough. I look at the proposal in California, the three ex-presidents asking for prohibition to end, and this news, as "encouraging", but when will we see the end to no-knock warrants? Or the extension of medical marijuana to psychological disorders? Or a reasonable police force?

This isn't a step towards the end of the War On Drugs, it's just a step in the reasonable direction for State's Rights. The War On Drugs is the root of many problems in this country, and this country needs to have a dialog about it. A "coward" is afraid to talk about the real failed policy.

I wholly endorse Fidelity. There are many myths about drug use and the law in this country, but the continuation of this mindless policy is a serious block to recovery of our wellbeing as a people. Some will say that it is a step to far for Obama to go, to take on this issue as well. What are they talking about? Is he going to be just another in the line of clowns and villians we have had since Eisenhower? Yes, nuclear disarmament and managing the fiscal crisis is more important, but in the context of health reform, discussing drug use, abuse, and law enforcement is supremely important.

"What the president said during the campaign, you'll be surprised to know, will be consistent with what we'll be doing here in law enforcement," he said. "What he said during the campaign is now American policy."

On a personal note, this sardonic side is something I've long liked about Holder.

Perhaps what Shapiro should have said is "The president believes that federal resources should not be used to circumvent state laws not supported by the majority of the people, costly and damaging to enforce, implicated in police corruption, and directed at self-regarding conduct which, absent legal intrusion, poses no harm to those other than the agent."

That might help to distinguish this case from other states' rights issues, such as assault weapons ownership. Personally, I think the 'pot heads' should be left alone. I have serious concerns about the 'gun nuts,' on the other hand.

Let us ask ourselves, 'What would Mill do?'

Festooned: I'm pretty sure Fidelity is referring to the three ex-Presidents in Latin America (Cardoso, Gaviria, and Zedillo) who called for new approaches to replace the drug war.

To others: The Holder statement is not an endorsement of states' rights, but merely a note that when it comes to medical marijuana in states where medical marijuana is legal under state law, the federal government has more important things to do than interfere.

Finally: It amazes me the people who still believe that administrations are required to somehow fully enforce every law on the books in every instance. Even if that was physically possible, it would be stupid. There are thousands of ridiculous old laws on the books that are not enforced (either by federal "cops" or local cops). The worst that would happen in this instance is that Congress could force Holder or the DEA Head to come and explain why the Federal government isn't taking resources used to go after drug cartels and instead arrest sick people following state law.

Clayton: :"But that would require a consistent federalism--as opposed to being sympathetic to potheads."

You are referring to Michael Phelps?

Yes, he's very dangerous to America....

So, he won't enforce the Voting Rights Act? Or the Civil Rights Acts? or the ADA? Or the law banning protests in front of abortion clinics? Or etc etc

Or just this one federallaw?

you do realize there is a difference between not enforcing a law by not prosecuting a technical violator of that law in the interests of justice, and not enforcing a law that protects others civil rights.

if joe blow doesn't get prosecuted for using medical MJ nobody's rights are violated (well, joe blow probably does cocaine not MJ but you get my point)

if otoh the AG decided not to enforce the voting rights act, people rights are violated.

huge difference.

The federal executive branch always has had discretion as to how to spend scarce federal law enforcement resources. There are more serious federal law enforcement problems to confront than medical marijuana use. Law enforcement priorities are usually set by way of policy rather than by changes in the law.

correct. there is discretion.

consider what seattle did...

Seattle, Washington: Initiative 75, passed by the Seattle, WA voters in September of 2003, requires that "the Seattle Police Department and City Attorney’s Office shall make the investigation, arrest and prosecution of marijuana offenses, when the marijuana was intended for adult personal use, the city’s lowest law enforcement priority." The ordinance subsequently adopted by the Seattle City Council to implement the new policy included provisions for the president of the city council to appoint an eleven-member Marijuana Policy Review Panel to assess and report on the effects of this ordinance.

Today, following more than three years of meetings and reviews, the Marijuana Policy Review Panel issued their final report, including the following conclusions and findings:

Watching Holder get around Wickard v. Filburn should be interesting.

He doesn't have to get around it. Just because the Federal government has some power doesn't not require the AG to use it.

Finally: It amazes me the people who still believe that administrations are required to somehow fully enforce every law on the books in every instance. Even if that was physically possible, it would be stupid. There are thousands of ridiculous old laws on the books that are not enforced (either by federal "cops" or local cops). The worst that would happen in this instance is that Congress could force Holder or the DEA Head to come and explain why the Federal government isn't taking resources used to go after drug cartels and instead arrest sick people following state law.

I hear ya Pete, in this day and age it really is too much to ask that the government follow the massive amount of rules they write so that us people know what is going on. Arbitrary government abuse of power as long as it is favoring a particular group is how we do things now in this country.

But seriously, Obama can only ignore federal marijuana laws with the consent of Congress. Congress and SCOTUS could force the Obama administration to enforce those laws and even impeach Obama if they wanted to for not following federal law. We all know that won't happen, but if our Constitution and our laws and our lawyers were worth more than used toilet paper that is how it should work. Assuming we had already passed an amendment to the Constitution to prohibit marijuana in the first place. Unfortunately for the Obama administration, they aren't claiming that federal marijuana laws are unconstitutional they are just happy to be able to get away with the same abuses of power that Bush and his predecessors have gotten away with.

This is awesome, BUT the laws still need to be CHANGEd.

"The president believes that federal resources should not be used to circumvent state laws"

I'll believe he means it, fully, when he lets states undermine the National Firearms Act (at least in intra-state holdings of firearms).

The larger point is that the reason adanced by the administration is BS. They don't like pot laws so won't enforce them as much. I disagree but fine, its their government. That is totally different than the stated reason, which they certainly do not share in any other area.

of course it's BS. it's called politics.

obama of course has no respect for state's rights.

but regardless of his REASON, he is still expanding states rights and vastly improving federal policy by doing so.

'What would Mill do?'


Mill would leave both the pot heads and the gun nuts alone.

BTW I hate the term "gun nut" because it doesn't really have a real meaning, it is just a knee jerk insult aimed towards anyone who opposes the gun-control crowd's agenda.

That might help to distinguish this case from other states' rights issues, such as assault weapons ownership. Personally, I think the 'pot heads' should be left alone. I have serious concerns about the 'gun nuts,' on the other hand.

And that's the difference. Like most conservatives, I was appalled by the Raich decision. The pretense that anything that could move in interstate commerce is therefore subject to federal law means that federalism is dead.

Uh oh.

To all, I used 'gun nuts' in scare quotes precisely to flag it as judgmental [at the least] and as a misuse of persuasive language - just as I found C. Cramer's use of the phrase 'pot heads' to be.

If we are all going to raise our Don't Tread on Me flags over 'gun nuts,' how about over 'pot heads'?

Only a liberal could like that rationalization (because it gives liberals excuses to override state law on just about everything). And only a liberal could like the rationalization, while decrying that it was used in this particular case.

I don't know if that was directed at me or Randy R. I'm still trying to parse it. However, to the extent that it implies that 'liberals' are congenitally hypocritical (yes?), it seems over the top. Hypocrisy is not only in the eye of the beholder, but also is a nonpartisan vice.

Maybe I'll just wander back to the buffet thread; people seem much cheerier discussing that.

Jawohl!