GOP says Obama needs to uphold federal law

Discussion in 'Marijuana News' started by loopster, Jan 16, 2014.

  1. This is not good news! I do not know where this representative gets off saying the Feds have the "right" to pick and choose enforcing laws http://www.hightimes.com/read/gop-may-force-obama-raid-colorado-and-washingtonRep. Jim Gerlach, a Republican congressman from Pennsylvania, has filed HR 3857, a bill designed to allow congress to sue the president if he fails to enforce federal laws.“In recent months, we have witnessed an unparalleled use of executive discretion to selectively apply or enforce duly-enacted federal laws,” Gerlach wrote to colleagues last week. “The US Code is not an a la carte menu compiled to serve the whims of a president and federal agencies and no president or executive agency -- regardless of political party or affiliation -- should be able to simply pick and choose the laws they believe should be enforced based on their policy agenda or political wants.”While much of the GOP's complaint against President Obama lies with his administration's de-prioritization of the deportation of non-criminal illegal immigrants and various provisions of the Affordable Care Act (so-called “Obamacare”), it isn't hard to see how this power could be used by Congress to force President Obama's Justice Department to go against their August 2013 guidelines that allow Colorado and Washington to engage in recreational marijuana market regulations, or, for that matter, any of the 21 states that have enacted protections for the medical use of cannabis.Rep. Gerlach's bill would seek “declaratory and injunctive relief to compel the president to faithfully execute” duly-passed federal laws, like the Controlled Substance Act. Under the bill, if the House and Senate both pass resolutions with a 60 percent majority calling on the President to enforce a federal law, the US District Court in Washington DC would have 30 days to decide on forcing the president to act. Within 90 days the president could appeal the decision to the US Supreme Court.Rep. Gerlach has created the bill in response to what the GOP sees as a president who is failing to “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and … preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” as required by the Presidential Oath of Office. Rep. Gerlach was inspired by the testimony of George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley, who told the House Judiciary Committee last month, “The problem with what the president is doing is that he's not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system. He's becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid.”It's interesting that there wasn't much noise from the House GOP during the two terms of the Bush Administration were in power. According to a 2007 report from the Government Accountability Office, President Bush issued statements claiming the right to ignore 160 provisions in 11 appropriations bills passed by Congress. By that point in his second term, President Bush had issued signing statements claiming his presidential right to ignore over 1,100 laws passed by Congress.Of course, when the Republicans had the Oval Office, it was Democratic stalwarts like Michigan's John Conyers and West Virginia's Robert Byrd who wanted to force the president to enforce federal laws passed against torture of detainees, setting minimum qualifications for the head of FEMA (to prevent another “heck of a job, Brownie”/Hurricane Katrina debacle), and banning the transfer of nuclear secrets to India. Sen. Byrd in 2007, echoing Rep. Gerlach today, said, “The White House cannot pick and choose which laws it follows and which it ignores. When a president signs a bill into law, the president signs the entire bill. The Administration cannot be in the business of cherry picking the laws it likes and the laws it doesn't.”It's great we've gotten two states to legalize, three states are on deck for 2014 and another five or six are waiting in the wings for 2016. But, obviously, until we end the federal prohibition on cannabis, our work is not complete."I experienced several more of these deeply euphoric moments on my rambles through forest and meadow. It was these experiences that shaped the main outlines of my world view and convinced me of the existence of a miraculous, powerful, unfathomable reality that was hidden from everyday sight" -Albert Hoffman-
     
  2. Rep. Jim Gerlach (R-Pa.) has proposed legislation that would allow the House and Senate to sue the Obama administration for its failure to enforce the law or for what lawmakers consider to be other violations of the Constitution.Legal challenges against Obama would be put on a fast track that leads to a decision within 90 days, and these decisions could only be reviewed by the Supreme Court.ADVERTISEMENTGerlach's bill, H.R. 3857, is a response to what Republicans see as a series of decisions by President Obama to selectively enforce laws passed by Congress. The GOP has complained for months about delays to various provisions of ObamaCare, and Obama's 2011 decision to prioritize the deportation of illegal immigrants who have committed crimes over other illegal immigrants."In recent months, we have witnessed an unparalleled use of executive discretion to selectively apply or enforce duly-enacted federal laws," Gerlach wrote to colleagues last week. "These decisions have not only exceeded the rights and responsibilities bestowed on a president by the U.S. Constitution, but they have undermined the collective work that Congress constitutionally fulfills under Article I."The U.S. Code is not an a la carte menu compiled to serve the whims of a president and federal agencies - and no president or executive agency, regardless of political party or affiliation - should be able to simply pick and choose the laws they believe should be enforced based on their policy agenda or political wants."Gerlach's bill tries to solve this problem by giving the House and Senate new authority to seek "declaratory and injunctive relief to compel the president to faithfully execute" U.S. laws. Before filing an action, the House and Senate would have to pass a resolution that has the support of 60 percent of all members present and voting.Under the bill, actions would be filed in the District Court in Washington, D.C. and would have to be heard no later than 30 days after being filed.The bill says rules and regulations, executive orders and decisions not to defend the constitutionality of a law could all be the subject of a legal action by the House or Senate.In an interview with The Hill, Gerlach said his bill was developed after Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University, testified before the House Judiciary Committee last month about the dangers of having a president who does not faithfully executive the laws."The danger is quite severe," Turley told the committee. "The problem with what the president is doing is that he's not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system. He's becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid."Gerlach said the bill would help ensure the Supreme Court could relatively quickly weigh in on these issues and help push for compliance with the law in cases where the administration has ignored the demands of Congress."We think it's the right balance between policy and politics within the legislative body," he said.http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/government-oversight/195353-gop-bill-lets-congress-sue-obama-over-failure-toRead more: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/government-oversight/195353-gop-bill-lets-congress-sue-obama-over-failure-to#ixzz2qZZs5DIY Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook"I experienced several more of these deeply euphoric moments on my rambles through forest and meadow. It was these experiences that shaped the main outlines of my world view and convinced me of the existence of a miraculous, powerful, unfathomable reality that was hidden from everyday sight" -Albert Hoffman-
     
  3. While I applaud the bill for reasons unrelated to cannabis, this isn't going anywhere.
     
  4. Haha he can bite the big one! He's no different than over zealots religious fanatics, ranting about something for no good reason.

    The people have spoken. We want cannabis and hemp. It's hit critical mass - game over! We won, celebrate boys and girls!
     
  5. #5 daneel olivaw, Jan 18, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 18, 2014
     the republicans are entirely right in this case, federal law supersedes state law, this is in the constitution. colorado and washington are not technically legalized.
     
    i want weed to be legal too but it wont happen until we get rid of these corporate politicians like obama, the entire right wing, and many or even most of the "democrats"
     
  6. Kim jong un > obama
     
  7. #7 startedat45, Jan 18, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 18, 2014
    But at the same time entirely wrong.  You know what else is in the Constitution?  The Tenth Amendment, which states:
     
     
    I have read the Constitution and there is not one word in it about MJ.  This clause has been so trampled on by politicians in both parties and the SC that I'm not sure why we don't just remove it.  This should be a state issue and the feds should have nothing to do with it.
     
  8. the feds use the UN drug treaty to enforce drug law here in America. u'r right, it does not state it in our own constitution
     

Share This Page