41 votes

Obama Administration orders all California medical-marijuana outlets to close

"Federal prosecutors in California are threatening to shut down medical marijuana dispensaries throughout the state, sending letters to warn landlords to stop sales of the drug within 45 days or face the possibility that their property will be seized and they will be sent to prison."

"The stepped-up enforcement appears to be a major escalation in the Obama administration’s bid to rein in the explosive spread of medical marijuana outlets that was accelerated by the announcement that federal prosecutors would not target people using medical marijuana in states that allow it."

The rest of the article is a the following link:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/10/feds-cracking-...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Have you ever heard of the

Have you ever heard of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions? They certainly did care about this issue. An individual state has little say in government. If a majority of other states are behind the law, it can't do anything. And how has your philosophy worked out? Have the states really been able to control the growth of the federal government? As we have seen, the people throw out the bums, only to be replaced by more bums. What about a situation where the majority of people support an unconstitutional law? Should the states where most people are against it just tolerate it? I realize the system isn't perfect, and it requires some faith in states to accept constitutional laws, but that would be a lot better than having faith in the federal government not to pass any law it deems constitutional(especially if people read the Constitution honestly). The point of the Constitution was for the states to grant some limited powers to the federal government to run the union. Very few were controversial. Most of the controversy was over the fact that many people (the anti-Federalists) were afraid that the Constitution would not be able to sufficiently bind the federal government to those limits. In hindsight, they were probably right. And state legislatures no longer elect senators. Again, I'd rather run the risk of a state nullifying a constitutional law (which 99% of the time should not be that controversial if it is indeed constitutional) than the federal government enacting unconstitutional law after unconstitutional law, which they have done over time, especially in the last 100 years.

"Have you ever heard of the

"Have you ever heard of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions? They certainly did care about this issue. An individual state has little say in government. If a majority of other states are behind the law, it can't do anything."

The system is not at all perfect. But instead of having a majority of states holding a minority of states hostage, you would rather have a minority (even one!) state holding the majority of states hostage?

"Have the states really been able to control the growth of the federal government? As we have seen, the people throw out the bums, only to be replaced by more bums."

That is because the states have no interest in limiting the size of government. This has been the case since the civil war. States and individuals love sucking on the teat of the government...because it does have great short-term benefits. This problem is not one to do with our system, our Constitution, etc. It has to do with human behaviour. With good intentions, growing government, getting the benefits, until it grew too big.

"As we have seen, the people throw out the bums, only to be replaced by more bums. "

The idiocy of the American people, who care more about their own personal situation and identity vs. substantive policy.

"What about a situation where the majority of people support an unconstitutional law? Should the states where most people are against it just tolerate it?"

A digression here, but Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in law school, actually proposed a hypothesis around thi, using the tenth amendment. According to her. the federal government could do whatever it wanted, but unless specifically in the constitution, the states had a right to nullify it. This way, no one was infringing on anyones right. If 33 states want to have a federally-run healthcare plan, and 17 do not, why should those 17 impede the wishes of the 33? And if 34 states signed on, why should those 34 impede on the 16? As long as states have the confidence and will to nullify federal laws, this sytem would work well. Amendments to the constitution would occur only when it came to issues of great importance.

"on the I realize the system isn't perfect, and it requires some faith in states to accept constitutional laws, but that would be a lot better than having faith in the federal government not to pass any law it deems constitutional(especially if people read the Constitution honestly). "

The sytem is broken because the people are not applying the proper check on the federal government. They aren't voting out the people who are passing so-called unconstitutional laws...why is that? Theoretically, it is because they feel that those laws are constitutional.

That is really what you are angry at. Because in this sytem, faith isn't being put in the federal government; after all, the process is in place to check their power. Faith is placed on the people to vote "properly".

"The point of the Constitution was for the states to grant some limited powers to the federal government to run the union. Very few were controversial."

Sorry, but they were very controversial. Didn't some states want to have a national church, bank, religion; some wanted slaves to be counted fully in the voting process, others wanted other enforcements, etc.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

The people of the country

The people of the country aren't applying the proper check. But what if the people of a state are willing to do so? You believe they have no right. As for the holding hostage thing, I think you're problem is you see passing a law and not passing a law as the same thing. Laws generally result in an abridgement of freedom. In your health care example, the 16 states are not forcing anything on the other 34, they are merely preventing the other 34 from forcing a system on them that they do not want. In fact, there is nothing in the Constitution that would prevent the 34 state legislatures from all passing laws to form a single health care program among them. But they have no right, constitutionally or morally, to force that on the states that do not want it.

There were plenty of controversies at the time (btw the voting one isn't a power of the federal government, which was the topic being discussed) but most of those very controversial things were left out of the constitution on purpose. Over the years, many people have tried (often successfully) to circumvent that regardless. The debate around the Constitution was mostly about the fear the anti-Federalists had about how the Constitution would be unable to restrain the federal government in the future from doing things they were not supposed to do under it. The supremacy clause (which is often brought up against the nullification argument)states "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land." Your version would read "This Constitution, the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance therof, as well as any other law the federal government decides to pass, whether in pursuance of the Constitution or not, shall be the supreme law of the land." Do you really think any state would have ratified the Constitution if it was written that way?

Your point about the people not doing their job proves my point. If the collective people of America cannot be counted on to check federal power, then why not allow the citizens of a certain state that are willing to check federal power, to do so?

"out of OBama's hands...."

"Dr. NO" says: "Well, then it is out of OBama's hands. The law has already been passed, and the supreme court has upheld the law."

That's still not accurate. The executive is the enforcement arm of the government. All he would have to do is to refrain from sending his federales out to enforce the laws that should never have been written, let alone passed.

Freedom is my Worship Word!

Do you see how that makes

Do you see how that makes Obama the final interpetor of the Constitution?

Congress says > we pass this law.

Obama says > law is unconstitutional; I will not sign.

Congress > we pass with 2/3rds majority.

Obama > law is unconstitutional; I won't sign.

Supreme Court says > law is constitutional.

Obama > I don't care; law is unconstitutional; I won't sign.

Don't you see the problem with that?

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Your scenario presents a

Your scenario presents a problem true, but there is no perfect form of government. Here's what's currently going on:

Congress passes unconstitutional law
Supreme Court fails to do its job and upholds it
President enforces it

I think the scenario you describe is much preferable to the one I've described.

The problem isn't that

The problem isn't that per-se, it is giving the President unilateral power. Giving him that much power is dangerous.

What if Congress passes a constitutional law, the Supreme Court upholds it, and the President reject its because he doesn't like it?

Or what if one day the President decides to make a bold executive order, using the same powers that allowed him to unilaterally reject any law on a whim?

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

I'm not giving the president

I'm not giving the president unilateral power to do whatever he wants. I'm giving him the power to refuse to enforce a law that he deems unconstitutional. That doesn't give him the power to give an unconstitutional executive order that has the force of law. Is this a perfect system? No, but it's better than simply letting the government pass whatever the hell they want, as long as another branch of the federal government says its ok (BTW, couldn't the supreme court strike a law down simply because they don't like it? And if your response is "well there's nine of them, there's only one president" keep in mind that you argued that a problem with nullification is that a state government could nullify a constitutional law). Again, the federal government was never intended to be carrying out extensive powers. The laws it is authorized to pass generally shouldn't be controversial (an exception is tariffs, and that was a cause of division in the 1800's). What kind of constitutional law do you have in mind that a president would refuse to enforce, and why is this worse than continuing to let unconstitutional laws be enforced?

Hypothetically, if Congress passed a law mandating that the president kill everyone of a certain race, and the supreme court upheld it, should the president go ahead and enforce it? I realize this is an extreme example that is unlikely to ever happen, but I doubt you would say yes. And my point is that any test by which the president refuses to enforce a certain law that does not rely on the Constitution is inherently arbitrary.

Your logical fallacy

Dr NO says

"Congress says > we pass this law.

Obama says > law is unconstitutional; I will not sign.

Congress > we pass with 2/3rds majority.

Obama > law is unconstitutional; I won't sign. ..."

At this point, the signature is irrelevant. That's what "Override the Veto" means.

Then, when he sends out the enforcement arm, someone sues claiming the law is unconstitutional, and so on.

But when we're talking about Dr. Paul, it's pointless to bring up the question of constitutionality - he will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec1

Freedom is my Worship Word!

Instead of the second "sign",

Instead of the second "sign", I mean "enforce".

No logical fallacy.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

He can do whatever the hell he wants to...

...because he is a bona fide dictator and until the people say STOP and the local sheriffs / state legislatures grow some balls and say "NULLIFY NOW", Resident Barry Hussein Obombya will certainly do whatever he wants.

He's a tyrant. He's willing to let the blood of tens of thousands of his OWN countrymen be on his garments (through unconstitutional war casualties and through veteran suicides) and millions of civilians of other countries.

So he most certainly, like the Bushes before him, will continue to usurp power.

Basically, he's giving a finger to the Sheriffs in California. When will the day come when a Cal sheriff, like a Richard Mack, will say "get the hell out of my county, or I will arrest you! Our state law legalizes med marijuana. You have no jurisdiction here! Step in, I will arrest you"?

When will that day come???

As far as I'm concerned, almost all sheriffs seems to be gutless politicians who wilt and whimper when the emperor speaks. Or what normally happens is they JOIN IN with these federal bureaucrats as they rape and pillage America.

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a rEVOLution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford

reedr3v's picture

Oh poor Obama *wrings hands*

What can he do? He could put principle above pandering and cowardice and unconstitutional laws.

If Dr. Paul were the president this would not happen. Paul is a leader and man of peace. Obama is a ruthless, cold, calculating, murderous war tyrant who loves power and doesn't care what it takes to increase his grip on the controls.

It turns my stomach when people persist in giving him a pass on his heartless rampage over civil rights and his ruthless persecution of innocents.

This is the same administration idiots want in charge of their medical choices.

I agree that Obama is a war

I agree that Obama is a war tyrant. I don't know if he is ruthless or calulating. I think he cares about winning and his own power above anything else, which is why he puts wall street above main street. At best, he is a terribly ineffective and weak leader who does not know how to navigate in politics.

However, as President, Obama cannot put "principle" over the constitution.

Congress passed the CDAC act and continues to re-up it and its successors.

What would Obama be if he decided to end those laws without Congressional approval? He'd be a dictator, a monarch. He can't do that; he has to go through Congress.

The only way he could nullify the War on Drugs, is through calling it unconstitutional. But the Supreme Court has called it constitutional. Obama as a member of government is obligated to honor the rulings of the court. That is the way the system is set up.

Ron Paul would have to do the same. As President, what he thinks is constitutional does not matter once the court makes a decision.

Now, do I think that if he could, Obama would end the WOD, legalize gay marriage, etc? No, because those positions are unpopular. Say what you will, but 2/3rds of the country and likely over 80% of llikely voters are strongly in favor of the drug wars. His corporate donors love them as well. Gay marriage is strongly opposed in the South and many swing states, and while many who favor gay marriage would not vote for Obama just because he favors it, many people who are against gay marriage would vote against Obama just because he is for it.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

reedr3v's picture

I still think you are WAY too soft on

Obama to think he's merely weak and ineffectual and inept. He's up to his ears in corruption and lies and outright murder of domestic and foreign peoples. He doesn't care for anyone or anything but his own Power.

By comparison, a President Paul would bring with him into office the people's clear choice for freedom and peace and a sound economy. The Fed would be curtailed, Congress would not dare to continue funding the WOD and every other violation of civil liberties. Even the mighty Supreme Court would get the message and begin to take the Constitution seriously.

Yes one man cannot make all the changes needed. But a strong, inspiring, moral leader can set solutions in motion, appoint a decent Secretary of Treasure, a moral Chairman of a Department of Peace/Defense, can create a climate in which ethical and Constitutional action is expected and demanded.

The Supremes

The Supreme Court has called the war on drugs constitutional? Do you have a reference to exactly which clause they cited to find the authorization for the FedGov to do violence to people who have done no harm to any other person?

Freedom is my Worship Word!

Gonzalez vs. Raich, I

Gonzalez vs. Raich, I believe? Commerce clause intepretation.

There are other ones re-affirming it; US vs. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Co-op for example. Many more at the district-court level.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Oh. Crap.

The god-damned "commerce clause" again, huh?

Gawd, I hate Government! (except for the part where they schlep our sewage, maintain the roads, and do the other various and sundry grunt work like maintain a map room and a land office and schtuff like that.)

Marijuana is Chemotherapy for the Cancer of Big Government!

Did you know that Marijuana can cure an alcohol hangover?

I'm not completely sure of this, but I think that the calories in munchie food don't count. ;-)

Freedom is my Worship Word!

100% agree. The commerce

100% agree. The commerce clause has been interpreted way too broadly.

However, that doesn't mean that someone can just unilaterally decide to enforce his own interpretation. That is a dictatorship. Better that we have the checks and balances.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

But we don't have any checks and balances!

There is no iterpretation of the commerce clause that would outlaw growing of a paticular plant on your own property.

These judges are just useless overpaid tyrants just like most people that work for the Gov't.

Can I Get A...

http://goo.gl/XwSh7

Jack Wagner

Election Next Year

We are going to see more of this political jockeying in months to come. Nothing more than his election time move to the "middle"

How so many people are completely blinded by this asshole and the fraud he is mind blowing. America gets the government it deserves, and the immorality of its leaders are simply a reflection of the immorality of the people who have elected them.

This country is FUBR

Very true that the American

Very true that the American people get the government they deserve.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Blowback - How It Worked Before

The attorney general of CA, Dan Lundgren (R), decided he didn't like it that CA voters had made medical marijuana legal, so he raided and shut down a dispensary in San Francisco, citing technicalities.

Campaign donations for the next marijuana initiative went through the roof.

Obama may be doing us a favor, for sure.

If you want more history of obstructionism by law enforcement and political authorities, read here:
http://www.ccrmg.org/journal/04aut/mccartney.html

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

And now he's my Representative

in District 3.

Where's the medical marijuana

Where's the medical marijuana lobby??

busy running occupy the fed and OWS

at-least in Colorado.

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
Rand Paul 2016

Bring It On Feds

We have been growing strong for YEARS and will always continue. They have raided and closed many collectives around here BUT we simply rebuild and make our local support STRONGER.

There are too many people who realize how amazing marijuana is and the feds reasoning for trying to ban it is BULLSHIT.

We can't ban plants in hopes of making anyone safe especially when the plant you are trying to ban has NEVER killed, hurt or harmed anyone since we have been on this earth.

http://shelfsufficient.com - My site on getting my little family prepped for whatever might come our way.

http://growing-elite-marijuana.com - My site on growing marijuana

I don't even use the drug but,

there are times I want to scream at the top of my lungs at the Government, "Get the hell out of my life!" I don't need you. I don't want you. You make my life miserable. Just go the fuck away and stay the fuck away.

I mean, I've had it. And while you're at it, take the satanic banksters and go to hell for good.

Shit, I'm pissed!

Wow

“I would not have the Justice Department prosecuting and raiding medical marijuana users. It’s not a good use of our resources.” — Barack Obama; August 2007.

But let's continue to fawn over him as our savior

Pottawattamie County Iowa

"Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven't had capitalism." -Dr. Ron Paul

That was Obama the candidate...

This is Obama the President. Obama the candidate was going to have us out of Iraq by now as well.

I would think that campaigning against somebody who has gone back on their word in every area would be very easy. If Ron Paul can win the Republican primary, he will easily win the Presidency.