Credit where it’s due
For the second time, I’ll give props to the Obama administration:
The White House affirms that he will end the Bush/Clinton policy of raiding medical marijuana providers who are operating within the parameters of state law. A victory for patients, for the Tenth Amendment, and for responsible use of federal law enforcement resources
February 5th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
San Francisco will be just ecstatic! But they will continue to fail massively to solve real criminal cases.
February 5th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Nice of you, but I would have waited until he’s actually done something. All talk so far.
February 5th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
If he had the balls to admit it’s all unconstitutional war on freedom I’d give him props.
He’s also got Holder, the anti-drug thug in there. This will be a first test of him as well. We’ll see if anything he says carries any weight.
February 5th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Where credit is due? Translation:
The White House affirms that he will end the Bush/Clinton policy of [enforcing federal laws that Obama doesn’t agree with]. A victory for [some drug users but not others], for the Tenth Amendment (as we like that one, others not so much and really not this one either for the most part), and for […] use of federal law enforcement resources (against our pet offenses; just like the last guy did).
February 5th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
I didn’t know buildings could speak.
I’m with Tom. If they came out and declared the War on Drugs the dismal, altogether counterproductive, pro organized crime piece of horseshit that it is, and then end the whole thing, I’d give ’em a prop.
February 5th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Come on…
You know The Big’O Himself has a prescription for medical marijuana. He passed this law for his own benefit.
😛
February 5th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Obama didn’t pass a law. He’s just decided to override the will of congress and their duly passed laws. Unilaterally, even.
Of course, as the Executive (i.e. Chief LEO) of the country he does essentially have that power (Obama: “I’m not saying it isn’t illegal I just don’t have the manpower to spare to investigate. I need those resources elsewhere”).
February 5th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
I’m with Ride Fast. So far, every BHO statement has come with an expiration date. I’ll laud him when I actually see them stop.
February 5th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Holy what? This seems awesome. I know it is a token, but wow. This seems good.
I’m still buying hi-cap mags and .223 and 762×39 ammo with every spare penny though…
But, answer me this Uncle: What about Rahm’s claim that the over 1 million people on the no-fly-list who will have no 2nd amendment rights:
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List#cite_note-latimes-7)
-and-
http://politicalobservatory.wordpress.com/2009/02/03/2007-rahm-emanuel-says-suspects-on-no-fly-list-are-not-part-of-the-american-family/
Yep, that’s right. Rahm won’t mind if a few cops/soldiers get wasted while confiscating semi-auto weapons from law abiding American citizens. What does he care as long as the job gets done. Oh, what’s that I hear? A black helicopter swooping overhead. I didn’t used to hear that, but now I’m used to it. Come and get me. I know you’re listening NSA. Muhaahaa haa ha!
February 6th, 2009 at 6:39 am
I guess I’m with ka on this one.
If he isn’t going to work to actually fix the law and he’s not enforcing the law, then he’s violating his oath of office and responsibilities therein.
Not fixing the problem means the problem remains to be a pain in the backside later when someone who will follow his oath takes office.
February 6th, 2009 at 9:14 am
ZOMG!!!! we’re all gonnaaaa dieee because it’s a gateway drug, and all those terminal cancer patients and glaucoma patients are gonna get hooked and then…uhhmm…yeah!
The War on (Some) Drugs is further proof that we don’t value freedom nearly as much as we seem to want to think we do.
February 6th, 2009 at 9:53 am
How can his oath to uphold the Constitution be violated by refusing to execute an unconstitutional law?
February 6th, 2009 at 11:51 am
What SD said.
Personally, I think BHO has, and will, violate his oath anytime he finds it an impediment to something he wants to do. But refusing to enforce unconstitutional laws is decidedly _not_ a violation of the oath — no matter _why_ he refuses.
February 6th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
SD, bob r,
Can you please point me to the SCOTUS decision declaring drug laws unconstitutional? Or should we just one man’s opinion on such matters?
When Obama acts on his singular personal opinion about the 2A will you be quite so supportive as you are now?
At the same time, I also take issue with the claim that Obama *must* enforce all laws or it’s a violation of his oath. Law enforcemnt officials have always had the descretion to say “With everything else I’ve got to do, do you really want to bother with *that*”. Something tells me that there aren’t mass arrests in Alabama of children every Halloween for violating the state’s law against wearing masks in public.