State's Rights, Except when they are wrong ? DOJ to go after legal weed

[cbelt3]

Considering over 90% of the US population lives where some form of legal weed exists, this is another politically clueless action that can only continue to damage the Republicans.


http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/04/politics/j...index.html
"(CNN)In a seismic shift, Attorney General Jeff Sessions will announce Thursday that he is rescinding a trio of memos from the Obama administration that adopted a policy of non-interference with marijuana-friendly state laws, according to a source with knowledge of the decision."

[Ombligo]

I wonder how long before a constitutional amendment is considered to bypass the feds?

You need 34 states to call for a convention to amend. There are currently 29 states with legalized marijuana in some form, and numerous considering it. The amendment doesn't have to say that pot is legal, just that it is a state's issue and not federal. The danger is the amendment could be expanded to a host of additional issues ranging from abortion to religious freedom.

Conversely if the house and senate flip, they could go the more traditional route.

[cbelt3]

Ombligo wrote:
I wonder how long before a constitutional amendment is considered to bypass the feds?
...

Ombligo,
A more likely consideration is a bill to legalize weed after the 2018 election throws Congress to the Democrats. With enough support it might be veto proof.

[Lemon Drop]

Last August Sessions sent a letter to Gov Inslee and AG Ferguson of Washington state filled with all kinds of false statistics and misleading statements about what is happening in the state with regard to legal pot. He's basically making stuff up in order to make his case against weed.

His federal review board did not recommend changing Obama-era policies. This is all him.


http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/spincontr...ot-system/

No doubt the states will sue if federal prosecutors go after legitimate businesses that the states' voters have said they want to be legal.

[Lemon Drop]

cbelt3 wrote:
[quote=Ombligo]
I wonder how long before a constitutional amendment is considered to bypass the feds?
...

Ombligo,
A more likely consideration is a bill to legalize weed after the 2018 election throws Congress to the Democrats. With enough support it might be veto proof.
"Removal of Cannibis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substance Act" has been brought up by Congress pretty much every session for the past 45 years. I think that's still down the road a ways - it's only been 5 years since recreational pot became legal in any state, there are many things to work out. WA and CO have done a lot of that work, but there's more. It'll happen eventually....

[Ted King]

Remember when the Democrats controlled the House for about 40 years (~1955 to ~1995)? The Republicans argued vociferously for term limits on House seats. It's the principle of the thing! If we don't have term limits people stay in their seats too long and become corrupt!

And then they won back the House and... "what, term limits... never mind". State's Rights is a much more used pseudo-principle that Republicans indulge in. State's Rights is a matter of principle! Except when they don't want it to be. Principles way too seldom stand up to an assault led by a desire to fulfill a party's tactical and strategic goals (both parties, but I think the Republicans are really on a big roll lately). The principle political parties almost always adhere to is "the ends justify the means" and the ends are some action X that they really want to do.

[sekker]

There is no legal ground to stand on.

Ethanol and tobacco are clearly regulated at an individual state level.

Bring it on, AG Sessions. Add wood to the dumpster fire that is the GOP 2018 platform.

EDIT: I personally have no interest in weed, but so long as ethanol and tobacco are legal, I see no reason weed should be excluded.

[$tevie]

Ted King wrote: pseudo-principle

Basically, all of the principles of the modern Republican party are "pseudo-principle"s. I'm a life-long Democrat but I can remember when one could respect Republicans even though one disagreed with them. I miss that party.

[pdq]

$tevie wrote:
[quote=Ted King]pseudo-principle

Basically, all of the principles of the modern Republican party are "pseudo-principle"s. I'm a life-long Democrat but I can remember when one could respect Republicans even though one disagreed with them. I miss that party.
^ this.

[pdq]

Heh. Sen. Cory Gardner (R-CO) becomes the latest Republican victim of the Trump administration's bait and switch:

“I will be putting today a hold on every single nomination from the Department of Justice until Attorney General Jeff Sessions lives up to the commitment that he made to me in my pre-confirmation meeting with him, the conversation we had, that was specifically about this issue of states’ rights in Colorado,” the senator said.

Gardner’s efforts to hold up nominations would continue until an Obama-era policy, the Cole Memorandum, is reinstated, he said. The Cole Memorandum stated that federal prosecutors would practice a hands-off approach when it came to state marijuana laws, accommodating a wave of pro-marijuana legislation at the state and local level.

Sessions nixed the Cole Memorandum Thursday...

Sucker! Don't you know you can't depend on what this bunch of clowns promised you yesterday, or even told you this morning?
Ask Susan Collins.

And sadly, I predict Gardner will soon fall into line, mumbling some excuse for the ones that tricked him, just like Collins did. Individual Republicans (and the promises made to them) must never stand in the way of satisfying the right-wing Trumpian impulse du jour.