Get this now. The sale, production, possession, or use of marijuana is against Federal law. Two states have legalized the use of marijuana. By definition, these laws are Unconstitutional. (see the Supremacy Clause) However, the Obama administration is making no move to enforce Federal law in these states.
Some banks, not knowing what the legal ramifications of handling what is evidently big money made in this newly legal (not really) industry, have refused to handle the money. After all, they could come under some severe penalties for knowingly handling money earned in violation of Federal law.
Along comes Eric Holder. He has said, basically, that the Feds won't mess with the banks if they take the money. Citing a "public safety component," and a "law enforcement perspective," he said it ain't good to have these large bunches of cash "just lying around."
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2014/01/holder-feds-to-let-banks-handle-pot-money-181777.html?hp=l2
In other words, the Administration, specifically the Holder Justice Department, wants to facilitate the banks in breaking Federal Law. They are winking at laws passed by states in direct contravention of Federal Law. This kind of thing really encourages respect for the laws of the land, doesn't it?
Personally, I have no problem with legalization of marijuana. It would really probably be a good thing. It would free up law enforcement, Federal, state, and local, to concentrate on more serious drug offences.
That isn't the question here, though. If the Obama Administration is in favor of legalizing marijuana, they should get a Senator from one of the states (Washington and Colorado) to introduce legislation repealing the Federal Laws against marijuana. If not, then they should enforce the law. Send Federal Agents into the states, make buys, and bust the dealers.
Of course, Holder is just taking his cue from his boss. Congress passed The Affordable Health Care Act. Obama signed it. Bad as it is, it is the law of the land. However, Obama, by decree, is picking and choosing how, when, and in some cases, what parts of the law are going to be enforced. That is Unconstitutional. It is the law. He is bound to enforce it. Selective enforcement of laws by the very people who are Constitutionally bound to enforce laws as they are written and passed is a dangerous thing. I don't understand why even the democrats in Congress are letting him get away with it.
I'm going to ask a lazy question (because I don't feel like reading the Constitution right now to check): where does the national gov't get the power to enact drug laws. I know they use the "commerce clause" for everything. Is that it? Second question: you say that selectively enforcing laws is unconstitutional (which I agree), but what recourse does Congress have to enforce the enforcing? Also, is it a crime for the Executive to violate the Constitution? If not, what difference does it make to them that they do unconstitutional things?
ReplyDeleteNext question: What prevents the next president from just deciding NOT to enforce Obamacare?
ReplyDeleteLaws are selectively enforced everywhere all the time.
ReplyDeleteOne person gets pulled over for speeding, only gets a warning. Another is pulled over and gets a ticket.
Two different teenagers arrested for DUA, one a known troublemaker, the other an honor student. The first gets arrested, the second is told to "Go home!"
Citizens have to get Obamacare, politicians do not.
I could think of many more. I'm not saying it's right but if we can't stop it on a local level, how could we ever hope to do so nationally? And plus, I think the government sees what is happening. They know eventually more and more states will legalize marijuana and they want to be able to profit from it when the time comes. -A. Garcia