Ted Cruz criticizes Obama for not jailing cannabis users in Colorado

[devil21]

That's the Ted Cruz I've come to know recently. He's such a 10th Amendment supporter! :rolleyes:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/10/senator-ted-cruz-attacks-obama-for-not-locking-up-marijuana-users-in-colorado/

(hey Gage, they used your picture!)


Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas on Friday criticized President Barack Obama for not arresting people in Colorado who violated federal law by using marijuana.

“A whole lot of folks now are talking about legalizing pot. The brownies you had this morning, provided by the state of Colorado,” he jokingly said during his keynote speech at Texas Public Policy Foundation’s Policy Orientation.

“And you can make arguments on that issue,” Cruz continued. “You can make reasonable arguments on that issue. The president earlier this past year announced the Department of Justice is going to stop prosecuting certain drug crimes. Didn’t change the law.”

Voters in Colorado and Washington state voted to legalize the recreational use of marijuana in 2013, but federal law still prohibits the use of the drug. The Department of Justice announced in August of 2013 that it would not target for arrest adults who used marijuana in compliance with state laws.

Cruz said the Obama administration should continue imprisoning people for using marijuana until federal law is changed.

“You can go to Congress, you can get a conversation, you could get Democrats and Republicans who would say, ‘We ought to change our drug policy in some way,’ and you could have a real conversation, you could have hearings, you could look at the problem, you could discuss commonsense changes that maybe should happen or shouldn’t happen. This president didn’t do that. He just said, ‘The laws say one thing’ — and mind you these are criminal laws, these are laws that say if you do ‘X, Y, and Z’ you will go to prison. The president announced, ‘No, you won’t.’”

[sluggo]

Of all the things to criticize Obama over, Cruz chooses this issue. :rolleyes:

[Dianne]

When I found out Cruz's wife works for Goldman Sachs, that was the icing on the cake. Cruz is just another piece of donkey chit. I bet he and Obama sip tea and eat crumpets together on a regular basis.

[FrankRep]

I think Ted Cruz is criticizing Obama for selectively enforcing the law. Obama has also been criticized for tweaking the Obamacare law without congressional approval.

[devil21]

I think Ted Cruz is criticizing Obama for selectively enforcing the law. Obama has also been criticized for tweaking the Obamacare law without congressional approval.

FrankRep to Cruz' rescue!

10th Amendment. Shall I google it for you?

[fr33]

It's often been said that the president can't do much when fantasizing about what a Ron Paul administration would be like. That was often countered by many of us saying that President Paul could selectively choose to not enforce laws. It's something many of us still hope for from Rand.

The state of Colorado chose to legalize weed. An overwhelming majority of Congress does not support legalizing weed or even decriminalizing incrementally. Cruz knows all of this yet he wants the feds to tromp all over the states.

[emazur]

I think Ted Cruz is criticizing Obama for selectively enforcing the law. Obama has also been criticized for tweaking the Obamacare law without congressional approval.

Federal drug laws are unconstitutional in the first place - Obama cannot legally enforce those laws (would you rather that he did? ). States also have the right to nullify unconstitutional laws. Furthermore, one of the tenants of nullification is that it's supposed to make the president look like a bad guy if he goes against (excuse me for having to say this) "the will of the majority" of a state (especially if it's a liberal in office and opposition to the law is considered to be a "liberal" issue, as it is here). From a liberty perspective, all the ducks are in a row. Cruz doesn't share the liberty perspective it would seem. What if a state decided to nullify Obamacare - would Cruz be criticizing Obama for not cracking down on people who refused to buy insurance and pay the fine? Nope. Would he suggest that the opposing state should deal with it by going "to Congress" in order to "get a conversation"? Nope. Smells like political grandstanding here

[FrankRep]

FrankRep to Cruz' rescue!
10th Amendment. Shall I google it for you?


Federal drug laws are unconstitutional in the first place - Obama cannot legally enforce those laws (would you rather that he did? ).

Chill out.

I'm a big supporter of the 10th Amendment/Nullification movement.

[FrankRep]

Explain this one:


Ted Cruz Supports the 10th Amendment, Nullification Movement (2010) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIS7KN0QuzI)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIS7KN0QuzI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIS7KN0QuzI

Former Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz remarks at the launch of the Texas Public Policy Foundation's Center for Tenth Amendment Studies. Austin, Texas. 5/20/10.

[Occam's Banana]

What. A. Dick.

Until now, I have been utterly indifferent to Cruz.

Not anymore. Ted Cruz can go to hell.

[FrankRep]

I'm not defending Ted Cruz, but he used to support the 10th Amendment so either his speech falsely painted him as anti-10th or he did a major flip-flop.

[Ender]

Of all the things to criticize Obama over, Cruz chooses this issue. :rolleyes:

Yup.

And I'm with Obama on this one- take a leap Cruz and get your head where the sun shines.

[kcchiefs6465]

Yup.

And I'm with Obama on this one- take a leap Cruz and get your head where the sun shines.
Obama is hardly the savior for marijuana reform.

[jkr]

so much for the constitution
and so much for ted

[James Madison]

I'm not defending Ted Cruz, but he used to support the 10th Amendment so either his speech falsely painted him as anti-10th or he did a major flip-flop.

Or he's a Tea-o-con.

[Ender]

Obama is hardly the savior for marijuana reform.

Oh, I agree- I think it is better to NOT arrest people in Colorado than to throw them in jail for a conflicting federal law.

[kcchiefs6465]

Oh, I agree- I think it is better to NOT arrest people in Colorado than to throw them in jail for a conflicting federal law.
Obama doesn't.

Trust and believe, the DEA is very active in Colorado.

[Christian Liberty]

I think Ted Cruz is criticizing Obama for selectively enforcing the law. Obama has also been criticized for tweaking the Obamacare law without congressional approval.

Constitution > "Federal Law."

I don't see how tweaking an unconstitutional law and not enforcing such a law have much in common.


What. A. Dick.

Until now, I have been utterly indifferent to Cruz.

Not anymore. Ted Cruz can go to hell.

He's been a shill for Israel for awhile now, have you been unaware of this? Don't get me wrong, this is another reason for this idiot to go to Hell, but its hardly the first.


Obama is hardly the savior for marijuana reform.

We know. Obama still > Cruz on this issue.


Oh, I agree- I think it is better to NOT arrest people in Colorado than to throw them in jail for a conflicting federal law.

Yeah, that's what we call the "sane person" response;)

[RickyJ]

Isn't he a dual citizen? I think he should resign immediately, we don't need dual loyalty elected or appointed officials in the USA. Recall his ass!

[kcchiefs6465]

We know. Obama still > Cruz on this issue.

Obama has imprisoned peaceful marijuana growers and smokers. He has jailed non-profit organizers who only wish to alleviate pain and medically help the poor and decrepit. Ted Cruz has not. Obama's rhetoric now is piss in the face of the one million plus jailed for marijuana crimes. Aside to them, it is atrociously offensive to those directly arrested at his request.

You can dislike Cruz's rhetoric and applaud Obama's but the truth of the matter is that Obama is multiple times worse than even a tyrant like George W. Bush with regards to just the medical marijuana issue, the drug war issue in general, or in general. Ted Cruz hasn't reached that level of power and certainly has not been that directly at blame. Not that Cruz is some savior for marijuana reform, even if his words are out of context as I somewhat suspect. Cruz is another politician. Rand Paul, by the way, doesn't have the appropriate response to this issue. Not many do.

[Christian Liberty]

Obama has imprisoned peaceful marijuana growers and smokers. He has jailed non-profit organizers who only wish to alleviate pain and medically help the poor and decrepit. Ted Cruz has not. Obama's rhetoric now is piss in the face of the one million plus jailed for marijuana crimes. Aside to them, it is atrociously offensive to those directly arrested at his request.

You can dislike Cruz's rhetoric and applaud Obama's but the truth of the matter is that Obama is multiple times worse than even a tyrant like George W. Bush with regards to just the medical marijuana issue, the drug war issue in general, or in general. Ted Cruz hasn't reached that level of power and certainly has not been that directly at blame. Not that Cruz is some savior for marijuana reform, even if his words are out of context as I somewhat suspect. Cruz is another politician. Rand Paul, by the way, doesn't have the appropriate response to this issue. Not many do.

OK, I get that Cruz isn't really in power, but the fact remains that Cruz's position this issue is more authoritarian than Obama's. I'm not "Applauding" Obama either. I've referred to him as a "capital criminal" and "a man who ruined far more lives than Ted Bundy" (That's the understatement of the year too, but I use that against people who AREN'T "awake.") I think he's disgusting and vile. But he's still less evil than Cruz with regards to this issue, despite still being evil and having more power to implement that evil.

[Occam's Banana]

He's been a shill for Israel for awhile now, have you been unaware of this? Don't get me wrong, this is another reason for this idiot to go to Hell, but its hardly the first.

I've been aware of it. I just don't give a shit. (That is, after all, what "utterly indifferent" means.)

And if I never hear the word "Israel" again, it will be too soon.

[Christian Liberty]

I've been aware of it. I just don't give a shit. (That is, after all, what "utterly indifferent" means.)


Wait, so why don't you care about that?


And if I never hear the word "Israel" again, it will be too soon.

That won't happen until dispensationalism is eliminated as a political force. In other words, that won't happen.

[kcchiefs6465]

OK, I get that Cruz isn't really in power, but the fact remains that Cruz's position this issue is more authoritarian than Obama's. I'm not "Applauding" Obama either. I've referred to him as a "capital criminal" and "a man who ruined far more lives than Ted Bundy" (That's the understatement of the year too, but I use that against people who AREN'T "awake.") I think he's disgusting and vile. But he's still less evil than Cruz with regards to this issue, despite still being evil and having more power to implement that evil.
Cruz's "position" flows with the current. Have you watched the video Frank posted? I'll admit I have not either. (I really cannot stomach Cruz except for the occasional roasting of Feinstein) The excerpt quoted sounds out of context. How out of context?-- I couldn't say. The fact remains the same that Cruz would be hard pressed in a Senatorial career to do more damage than Obama or Bush has. Obama's current appearance of calling back the dogs makes no nevermind when the people he's ordered arrested are incarcerated to this day (and for decades beyond it, as well).

He pardoned how many? I mean it's turkey number cubed, probably, and if not, close enough so. I understand that Cruz is not particularly a defender of liberty. He is multitudes better than Obama on any issue I could imagine... Including whether or not he favors sanctions on Iran or whether or not he favors locking up Coloradans. As I know you know, the amount of damage Obama has done to this republic and the rule of law is probably irreparable. That is not to excuse Cruz's at-times-awfulness.

[Christian Liberty]

KC- You're talking about something different than I'm talking about. You're talking about the relative harm done by each person, and I agree, Obama has caused far, far more, simply by virtue of having the powers of the President. Ted Cruz, by contrast, is only a Senator, as you say. So he can't do as much harm. I agree, you're right.

I, by contrast, am comparing the POSITIONS of these two men. And I am saying Ted Cruz's POSITION on this issue is more authoritarian than that of President Obama. I could say the same thing about Iranian sanctions.

Let's look at it this way. Person A thinks its OK to lock all Jews in a concentration. Person B thinks its OK to execute all Jews on the spot. However, Person A is the governor of Texas, while person B is a common civilian. Person A is causing more harm than Person B, but Person B's POSITION is worse.

[pcosmar]

I'm not defending Ted Cruz, but he used to support the 10th Amendment so either his speech falsely painted him as anti-10th or he did a major flip-flop.

Like many,, he talks out of both sides of his face.

Just because someone says things that you want to hear does not mean he is on your side.

Ronald Reagan said a lot of good stuff,, and did the opposite.
Bush said good stuff,, and did other stuff.

Shit,, even Obama said some good stuff.

They Lie. That is what they do.

and this is why I do not jump on every bandwagon.

[Occam's Banana]

Wait, so why don't you care about that?

Because Ted Cruz has never struck me as being anything other than a big, fat, garden-variety Zero - no different from all the other Zeros in Congress (except for the inordinate amount of attention, pro or con, paid to him by others in the Liberty Movement.) Thus, I could not care less who he's a shill for - any more than I care about who Senator John or Jane Q. Random is a shill for. (Franky, I have never understood all the Sturm und Drang over the guy.)

Repudiation of federal power (in the form of nullification, overriding federal laws/regulations, etc.) is something that matters a great deal to me, as I believe it to be one of the key strategies - quite possibly *the* key strategy - that should be pursued by the Liberty Movement. So with this latest bit of nonsense, Cruz gets moved from my "Big Fat Zeros I Don't Give a Damn About" column to my "Avowed Enemies of Liberty" column. YMMV.


That won't happen until dispensationalism is eliminated as a political force. In other words, that won't happen.

*shrug* Whatever. The phrase, "If I never X, it will be too soon" is just a rhetorical device - it isn't supposed to taken literally.

[kcchiefs6465]

KC- You're talking about something different than I'm talking about. You're talking about the relative harm done by each person, and I agree, Obama has caused far, far more, simply by virtue of having the powers of the President. Ted Cruz, by contrast, is only a Senator, as you say. So he can't do as much harm. I agree, you're right.

I, by contrast, am comparing the POSITIONS of these two men. And I am saying Ted Cruz's POSITION on this issue is more authoritarian than that of President Obama. I could say the same thing about Iranian sanctions.

Let's look at it this way. Person A thinks its OK to lock all Jews in a concentration. Person B thinks its OK to execute all Jews on the spot. However, Person A is the governor of Texas, while person B is a common civilian. Person A is causing more harm than Person B, but Person B's POSITION is worse.
I understand all of this. Cruz's position is not based in principle. It is conservatively what the people are telling him it is. He has a few special interest schemes but that is frankly to be expected with most all elected officials. I doubt or at least haven't seen yet, aside from this one excerpt of a speech, Cruz's position to be anything anti-10th Amendment. It reads like it is chopped and ill represented.

Obama's position, so we are clear, is to imprison non-violent, non-crime committing individuals with sentences that range in the multiple decades a piece. Federal raids and trials for medical and alleged legal marijuana, to be clear. That is his position. That is part of his legacy.

Even the words Obama says now are fundamentally wrong, half-assed, and political theater. Not that Cruz's aren't the same. So the ultimate test relies on their actions with regard to said position. Obama should be impeached for his; Cruz thrown out of office.

I'm not trying to nitpick.

[Cutlerzzz]

Isn't it amazing that Marijuana is so harmless that even the Prohibitionist can casually joke about it without controversy?

[jkob]

**** off Ted. I can't believe the amount of BS I've read in response to legalization in Colorado and Washington, straight up reefer madness BS.

[Spikender]

Obama can't jail anyone in Colorado, he was planning a visit there pretty soon.

Where is he supposed to get his Presidential hashish if all the sellers are sitting in prison?

[kcchiefs6465]

Obama can't jail anyone in Colorado, he was planning a visit there pretty soon.

Where is he supposed to get his Presidential hashish if all the sellers are sitting in prison?
Karzai

[Spikender]

Karzai

He could, but he has to make a smart PR move and buy American.

[enhanced_deficit]

Teddy Cruzer has been very anti-Obama lately.

Ted Cruz attacks Obama for not fully funding NSA spying during shutdown (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?429390-Ted-Cruz-attacks-Obama-for-not-fully-funding-NSA-spying-during-shutdown)

[jmdrake]

I think Ted Cruz is criticizing Obama for selectively enforcing the law. Obama has also been criticized for tweaking the Obamacare law without congressional approval.

Tweaking Obamacare without congressional approval = increasing the power of the federal government.

Not enforcing unconstitutional drug laws after Colorado citizens voted to decriminalize marijuana = decreasing the power of the federal government.

Sorry, but Ted Cruz sucks for criticizing Obama for actually doing the right thing.

Edit: By the way, it's called "prosecutorial discretion" and it's a bedrock of our separation of powers doctrine. Just because the legislative branch passes a stupid law or fails to repeal it doesn't mean that the executive branch has to go around arresting people over it. It's the same principle as when sheriffs in certain states have declared that they will not enforce new gun laws that they feel go to far. It's something to be applauded, not condemned.

[tod evans]

Edit: By the way, it's called "prosecutorial discretion" and it's a bedrock of our separation of powers doctrine. Just because the legislative branch passes a stupid law or fails to repeal it doesn't mean that the executive branch has to go around arresting people over it. It's the same principle as when sheriffs in certain states have declared that they will not enforce new gun laws that they feel go to far. It's something to be applauded, not condemned.

I've got a beef with "prosecutorial discretion" Jim.

Any time a DA is presented with an offense and exercises his "discression" the public needs to be aware of it.

Accountability is, and has been, a major issue in the executive and judicial branches for decades and the problem has only escalated....





That said, I just see Cruz as on his knees sucking neocon dick with high hopes of furthering his career.

[mz10]

I'm not defending Ted Cruz, but he used to support the 10th Amendment so either his speech falsely painted him as anti-10th or he did a major flip-flop.

Or he likes the 10th Amendment for things that make his little evangelical minions feel good, but not for anything else.

[jmdrake]

I've got a beef with "prosecutorial discretion" Jim.

Any time a DA is presented with an offense and exercises his "discression" the public needs to be aware of it.

Accountability is, and has been, a major issue in the executive and judicial branches for decades and the problem has only escalated....





That said, I just see Cruz as on his knees sucking neocon dick with high hopes of furthering his career.

Doesn't that already happen? In the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case the initial decision was not to charge. Well...technically there was an officer who wanted to charge but he was overruled. Then after much public pressure, Zimmerman was charged, prosecuted, and ultimately acquitted. There have been other cases where I thought someone should be charged but he never was. One was a case where a prosecutor refused to bring charges against an adopted Russian son of a wealthy couple for child molestation. The DA cited the fact that the two girls had slightly different stories as to what the young man told them he said his male member tasted like. (Strawberries versus blueberries something to that effect.) I thought that was a bad reason not to bring a case as he could have told two different victims two different things, or they might have misremembered that one small fact. The story was in one of the local papers, but it didn't garner enough attention for anything to happen.

And I agree with your assessment of what Ted Cruz is doing. But this, unfortunately, confirms criticism of him by some of my Obama loving friends and relatives which is Cruz seems to be being against Obama just for the sake of being against Obama. Ultimately this helps Rand IMO.

[PaulConventionWV]

I'm beginning to despise that word, "conversation." It seems like politicians only use it anymore to talk about talking about something while avoiding taking a hard stance on it. "Let's talk about it first, then I'll make up my mind according to which way the wind is blowing."

[compromise]

Still an ally on most other issues.

[tod evans]

Doesn't that already happen?

Publicity itself is at the prosecutors discression and I believe that to be a huge failing.

By and large DA's offices are run in secret, they refuse to prosecute on a whim or overreach on a whim too, it all depends on who's in the hot seat and what political power may be garnered.

The secrecy exhibited by cops was perfected by DA's in order to protect some and persecute others.

[69360]

Cruz is criticizing Obama for ruling by executive fiat yet again. Some of you can't seem to understand that because you blindly hate Cruz.

[Brett85]

I've disagreed with Cruz on foreign policy and other issues, but here he's basically just saying that the President shouldn't selectively enforce the law. He thinks that it's unconstitutional for the President to pick and choose what laws to enforce. I disagree with him, because I think that if a law is unconstitutional it shouldn't be enforced, even if it is a "law." But to me it just sounds like he was just saying that when a President want to change a law he should come to Congress and try to get it changed, rather than ignoring the law.

[jmdrake]

Publicity itself is at the prosecutors discression and I believe that to be a huge failing.

By and large DA's offices are run in secret, they refuse to prosecute on a whim or overreach on a whim too, it all depends on who's in the hot seat and what political power may be garnered.

The secrecy exhibited by cops was perfected by DA's in order to protect some and persecute others.

Well if you are the victim of a crime, aren't you able to go to the media yourself a point out the DA refused to prosecute?

[Christian Liberty]

I've got a beef with "prosecutorial discretion" Jim.

Any time a DA is presented with an offense and exercises his "discression" the public needs to be aware of it.

Accountability is, and has been, a major issue in the executive and judicial branches for decades and the problem has only escalated....





That said, I just see Cruz as on his knees sucking neocon dick with high hopes of furthering his career.

Jmdrake is talking about refusing to enforce a bad law, not enforcing a law that doesn't exist. I don't see the problem with that. I guess it could be used to protect police who commit crimes, but that wouldn't be Federal level anyway.

Still an ally on most other issues.

Some of us aren't complete pragmatists and we have actual principles.


Cruz is criticizing Obama for ruling by executive fiat yet again. Some of you can't seem to understand that because you blindly hate Cruz.

Jmdrake and Occam's Banana have explained why this is not simply criticizing Obama for "ruling by executive fiat."


I've disagreed with Cruz on foreign policy and other issues, but here he's basically just saying that the President shouldn't selectively enforce the law. He thinks that it's unconstitutional for the President to pick and choose what laws to enforce. I disagree with him, because I think that if a law is unconstitutional it shouldn't be enforced, even if it is a "law." But to me it just sounds like he was just saying that when a President want to change a law he should come to Congress and try to get it changed, rather than ignoring the law.

Again, Ted doesn't understand the concept of "nullification", which, as Occam's Banana rightly points out, makes him liberty's enemy.

[jmdrake]

I've disagreed with Cruz on foreign policy and other issues, but here he's basically just saying that the President shouldn't selectively enforce the law. He thinks that it's unconstitutional for the President to pick and choose what laws to enforce. I disagree with him, because I think that if a law is unconstitutional it shouldn't be enforced, even if it is a "law." But to me it just sounds like he was just saying that when a President want to change a law he should come to Congress and try to get it changed, rather than ignoring the law.

Do you think Ted Cruz would be critical of Obama not enforcing some law that teocons didn't like?

[Christian Liberty]

Do you think Ted Cruz would be critical of Obama not enforcing some law that teocons didn't like?

Of course not. This has nothing to do with any kind of constitutional principle on Ted Cruz's part. He simply doesn't like marijuana being legalized... anywhere. Between this and his foreign policy, I'm not sure how he's any different than your typical tea party neocon.

[tod evans]

I guess it could be used to protect police who commit crimes, but that wouldn't be Federal level anyway.


FF,
You know not of what you speak..

USDA's and USADA's wield prosecutorial discression like a 12# sledge.

[Brett85]

Between this and his foreign policy, I'm not sure how he's any different than your typical tea party neocon.

Probably not a lot, unfortunately. He's better in the sense that he at least doesn't support every war and every intervention and is somewhat opposed to the surveillance state. But he's still not really anywhere close to where Rand is at on the issues. That's why I think I'm going to have to support Rand in 2016 even though he irritates me at times as well.

[Christian Liberty]

Probably not a lot, unfortunately. He's better in the sense that he at least doesn't support every war and every intervention and is somewhat opposed to the surveillance state. But he's still not really anywhere close to where Rand is at on the issues. That's why I think I'm going to have to support Rand in 2016 even though he irritates me at times as well.

I think I've given up on politics, at least at the Presidential level. I think Amash should run, but I don't think he will.

[Brett85]

I think I've given up on politics, at least at the Presidential level. I think Amash should run, but I don't think he will.

It seems sad that it's gotten to this point. It seems like the liberty movement is failing, at least at the federal level. I hope that I'm wrong and am just being overly pessimistic.

[Christian Liberty]

It seems sad that it's gotten to this point. It seems like the liberty movement is failing, at least at the federal level. I hope that I'm wrong and am just being overly pessimistic.

No, I think you're right. I think the only hope there is is to pull another 1776. When, or if, things will get bad enough that anyone will have the guts to seriously start talking about that, I don't know.

I think its probably better to focus on the state level, vote for governors that support nullification and secession.

[jkr]

Of course not. This has nothing to do with any kind of constitutional principle on Ted Cruz's part. He simply doesn't like marijuana being legalized... anywhere. Between this and his foreign policy, I'm not sure how he's any different than your typical tea party neocon.

this

and its sad, i love this guy!
but anyone who puts another nation ahead of mine...we have had that
anyone who supports the nightmare that is the war on us -for ANY reason- is unfit to be my president

you wage war against the american people, YOU ARE A TRAITOR

BETTER GET IN FRONT OF THIS CRUZ!!!!
YOU WILL LOOK WORSE THAN CRISPY CREAM!

[klamath]

....

[belian78]

Explain this one:


Ted Cruz Supports the 10th Amendment, Nullification Movement (2010) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIS7KN0QuzI)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIS7KN0QuzI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIS7KN0QuzI

Former Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz remarks at the launch of the Texas Public Policy Foundation's Center for Tenth Amendment Studies. Austin, Texas. 5/20/10.
A politician that supports liberty when it's beneficial to them!? Color me shocked! Shocked I say!!

[belian78]

Isn't he a dual citizen? I think he should resign immediately, we don't need dual loyalty elected or appointed officials in the USA. Recall his ass!
I have to agree with this. Call me protectionist or whatever else, but it just feels wrong to me to have someone in office that has loyalties to two different countries.

[MRK]

I completely agree with Senator Cruz.

While the benefits of marijuana in general are at least questionable, marijuana brownies are truly remarkable.

[GunnyFreedom]

That's the Ted Cruz I've come to know recently. He's such a 10th Amendment supporter! :rolleyes:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/10/senator-ted-cruz-attacks-obama-for-not-locking-up-marijuana-users-in-colorado/

(hey Gage, they used your picture!)

LOL having fun in the comments. :D

[pcosmar]

Still an ally on most other issues.

Out of one side of his face perhaps.

I have doubts.

[NewRightLibertarian]

The Republican establishment seems to think that doubling down on marijuana prohibition is a good idea. These sorry, out-of-touch bastards are digging their own political graves.

[GunnyFreedom]

The Republican establishment seems to think that doubling down on marijuana prohibition is a good idea. These sorry, out-of-touch bastards are digging their own political graves.

They are in touch; with the 65 and older population. Which is why they have such a lock on that demographic. The >65 demo bore the brunt of the worst of the propaganda, and they just aren't going to shake it.

[surf]

I've said this before and everything this d-bag seems to do tends to back this up: Cruz is a cancer to the liberty movement.

I wish Ron Paul could/would take back his endorsement.

[AngryCanadian]

Isn't he a dual citizen? I think he should resign immediately, we don't need dual loyalty elected or appointed officials in the USA. Recall his ass!

Well he is an Canadian, i doubt he can became president. But wait i thought he was an CONSERVATIVE lol.

[Brian4Liberty]

All these pages and we don't have the actual video and context?

The entire speech is essentially about the rule of law, and imperial Presidents.

Start at the 6:00 minute mark. His discussion is about Obama's disregard for actual law (lawlessness), and legislating from the Whitehouse. He starts out talking about Obama implementing the Dream Act on his own. He then talks about drug law as an example of Obama stating he will not follow the law. He also talks about changing the drug law (via Congress), and that would be desirable. It's all a work up to the big point about Obamacare and how Obama changes the law whenever he wants, including all of the exemptions for crony businesses, Unions and Congress itself.

He is bipartisan in his criticism of Presidents ruling unilaterally. He talks about Nixon attempting to violate the rule of law. At the 21:00 minute mark, he criticizes Bush for violating the rule of law. At the 24:00 minute mark, he makes a joke about the NSA and Obama listening to cell phones.

Here's the video:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y43ocG9qFg

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Not cool Ted.

[Dr.3D]

The more I see from this guy, the more I believe he is controlled opposition.
TPTB will try to use him to take some of the votes away from Rand.

[muzzled dogg]

smh

[twomp]

Its going to be harder now for all the Cruz nut huggers on this forum to paint him as an "ally of liberty" but I'm sure they will surely try. Cruz does what his masters tell him to do.

[ObiRandKenobi]

cruz needs to smoke some weed and relax

[Cap]

Now be honest, does this surprise anyone? Other than Frank?

[Brian4Liberty]

Alternative headlines that could be spun from that speech (on some drug warrior outlet):

"Ted Cruz says it would 'reasonable' to liberalize drug law."

"Ted Cruz say it would be 'common-sense' to legalize drugs."

"Ted Cruz calls out Obama for not addressing the war on drugs."


“A whole lot of folks now are talking about legalizing pot. The brownies you had this morning, provided by the state of Colorado,” he jokingly said during his keynote speech at Texas Public Policy Foundation’s Policy Orientation.

“And you can make arguments on that issue,” Cruz continued. “You can make reasonable arguments on that issue. The president earlier this past year announced the Department of Justice is going to stop prosecuting certain drug crimes. Didn’t change the law.”

Voters in Colorado and Washington state voted to legalize the recreational use of marijuana in 2013, but federal law still prohibits the use of the drug. The Department of Justice announced in August of 2013 that it would not target for arrest adults who used marijuana in compliance with state laws.

Cruz said the Obama administration should continue imprisoning people for using marijuana until federal law is changed.

“You can go to Congress, you can get a conversation, you could get Democrats and Republicans who would say, ‘We ought to change our drug policy in some way,’ and you could have a real conversation, you could have hearings, you could look at the problem, you could discuss commonsense changes that maybe should happen or shouldn’t happen. This president didn’t do that.

[Brian4Liberty]

Now be honest, does this surprise anyone? Other than Frank?

He is trying to walk the fence on that one. Bad example to use when pointing out Obama's lawlessness.

[NewRightLibertarian]

They are in touch; with the 65 and older population. Which is why they have such a lock on that demographic. The >65 demo bore the brunt of the worst of the propaganda, and they just aren't going to shake it.

Agreed but that is no way to grow their ranks. Once those folks die off, they're completely ruined politically.

[GunnyFreedom]

Agreed but that is no way to grow their ranks. Once those folks die off, they're completely ruined politically.

Why yes, yes they are. Why that is not blatantly obvious to them I cannot imagine. It gets pointed out to them at pretty much every single convention and meeting around here. "Look, 80% of this crowd is over 65, and the 95% of rest are from the liberty movement. There is only one direction to go for the survival of this party." Then they turn around and keep doing the status quo. I can only imagine their minds have ossified.

[Brett85]

I've definitely noticed that younger Republicans tend to be far more libertarian than older Republicans, but the age group that supports the status quo Republican positions seems to be more like 50+ to me.

[Brett85]

This is an actual quote by someone on Cruz's Facebook page.

"Not only should every marijuana smoker be jailed, but the masturbators too."

If that guy had his way, almost everyone would be in prison. :rolleyes:

[Occam's Banana]

It seems sad that it's gotten to this point. It seems like the liberty movement is failing, at least at the federal level. I hope that I'm wrong and am just being overly pessimistic.

You are not wrong. You are being pessimistic - but rightly & realistically so. The Liberty Movement is inevitably going to fail at the federal level so long as it does not have a sufficient base at the state & local levels. It's basically a sort of "law of gravity" - things will fall to the ground unless they are supported & help up by something.

This is why we need to stop this ridiculous and counter-productive obsession with the presidency. It is grossly premature - the necessary foundation simply does not exist yet. (Ron Paul's presidential bids were not, I believe, serious attempts to actually win the presidency - rather, they were attempts to lay this much-needed foundation). So long as we persist in this "top down" strategy, the Liberty Movement will continue to evaporate - and will eventually dissolve (at least in its current form).

But perhaps such a dissolution is a necessary part of the "learning curve." Perhaps people will have learn from first-hand experience that you can't build a house by starting with the attic. (And this will be the case even if Rand Paul runs for POTUS & wins. [1]) Perhaps then it will be possible for the Liberty Movement to reform around the nuclei of more rational & reasonable efforts - such as building up our ranks in Congress (especially the House, ala Amash & Massie), building up our presence in state governements (ala Tom Davis), and pursuing the agenda of organizations such as the Tenth Amendment Center ... (all while just flatly ignoring the presidency altogether).

[1] Even if Rand somehow manages to win POTUS, I expect a LOT of people are going to be very bitterly disappointed at both (1) what he tries to accomplish, and (2) what he is actually able to accomplish. This is because President Rand will simply NOT have the basis of support necessary for implementing any kind of thoroughgoing and extensive libertarian and/or Constitutionalist agenda. (We can already see this in the fact that Rand has to pander and mince on things that should be "no-brainers" - such as the latest bill on Iran sanctions, which is clearly designed solely to torpedo diplomatic efforts).

[Brian4Liberty]

This is an actual quote by someone on Cruz's Facebook page.

"Not only should every marijuana smoker be jailed, but the masturbators too."

If that guy had his way, almost everyone would be in prison. :rolleyes:

There's a possibility that was sarcasm.

[GunnyFreedom]

There's a possibility that was sarcasm.

There is also a possibility that it was not. People be crazy.

[coastie]

There is also a possibility that it was not. People be crazy.


"Their ought to be a law".....:rolleyes:

[speciallyblend]

the gop,ted and rand are all still part of the reefer madness that needs to go. Colorado will take care of these right wing pandering nuts. The gop will have to come into the swing state of colorado and 100% support personal/medical and start talking about ending the failed drug war,. Or the gop can kiss 2016 goodbye before it begins.

don't think so?? Do you really want to mess with a majority voter base that nullified the gop/dnc and the federal gov.

[Working Poor]

The more I see from this guy, the more I believe he is controlled opposition.
TPTB will try to use him to take some of the votes away from Rand.

This

[speciallyblend]

ever wonder what a whiteObama looks like?? wellthe answer is ted cruz(the white Obama)

[enhanced_deficit]

ever wonder what a whiteObama looks like?? wellthe answer is ted cruz(the white Obama)

Wonder how he would thank Clapper for his "service to nation" same way:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMGMCWzZ4hI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMGMCWzZ4hI

[FrankRep]

Ted Cruz calls ObamaCare 'an illustration of lawlessness on a breathtaking scale' (http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2014/01/11/Ted-Cruz-calls-ObamaCare-an-illustration-of-lawlessness-on-a-breathtaking-scale)


Breitbart
11 Jan 2014


Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) has been on a tear about the rule of law lately. It's something he doesn't think the American people should be willing to surrender. He was as emphatic on the point as I've ever heard in his keynote speech for the Texas Public Policy Foundation on Friday.

Cruz stressed "we are a nation of laws, not of men" and said "if we had a president who could pick and choose which laws to follow at utter whim," it would be "seriously dangerous."

It was awfully polite of him to pose that as a hypothetical, because he knows full well that we're already there. He described ObamaCare, with its numerous illegal seat-of-the-pants fixes and suspended mandates, "an illustration of lawlessness on a breathtaking scale." He accused the media of remaining silent while Obama remorselessly abuses the rule of law because they like him and support his agenda.

Here's video of the full Cruz keynote speech. Incidentally, if you've never seen him speak before, he does this all the time - he just wanders away from the podium and delivers the whole address from memory. I've seen him talk a number of times, both in person and on video, and I've never seen him so much as pull out a note card, never mind look at a teleprompter.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y43ocG9qFg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y43ocG9qFg


So tell me, Cruz critics... where is he going wrong here? He's absolutely correct about the rule of law, and ObamaCare's near-total incompatibility with it.

Personally, I still regard the John Roberts Supreme Court decision that upheld ObamaCare to be an example of lawlessness. I don't want to put words in Sen. Cruz' mouth, but I suspect he'd at least be wiling to entertain that criticism. The Supreme Court should not be in the business of rewriting legislation on the fly to force it past Constitutional muster, or making arguments on behalf of the plaintiffs they refused to make for themselves, as in the case of the ObamaCare mandate's magical transformation into a "tax." Only sometimes it still isn't a tax, and the Obama Administration almost universally refuses to treat it as one, to the point of granting waivers from the mandate that should be blatantly illegal if it's a bona fide tax. The executive branch is not showing due respect for the Supreme Court by treating its decision as though it were written in crayon on wax paper, so why should the rest of us respect it?

In his speech, Cruz advised Democrats to "think about the next president, maybe a Republican, having the power Barack Obama has as a president who is not bound by the law." His point is easily understood, but it really should not be necessary to persuade Democrats that they'd better honor the rules now, or face the wrath of the Republican dictator who follows Obama. The point of honoring the rule of law - the essence of a lawful republic - is that you respect it even when, especially when, your agenda gives you good reasons to trample it.

Cruz makes that point well by noting that fidelity to laws binding the highest levels of the State was supposed to be one of the special and unique features of the American nation at our inception. These days, not only does the executive branch discard laws it doesn't like, and rewrite laws it finds politically inconvenient, but it's grown positively nonchalant about it.

Patriotic Democrats should be standing up to Obama lawlessness as vigorously as Republicans do, because when lawful government becomes a partisan issue... well, we don't have lawful government any more, do we? We have exactly what our Founders wanted to avoid: an unending high-stakes political battle in which factions battle for the levers of unrestricted power, and individual citizens can only hope they're not crushed beneath the stomping feet of clashing political titans.

We cannot afford to have the rule of law become entirely an instrument of the media, relevant only when they decide they want to make a big deal about a particular President's offenses. But if we are going to have such a system, it's a powerful argument in favor of voting Republican, because (as New Jersey governor Chris Christie can tell you) the media only cares about abuses of power when they're in office.

It's no coincidence that our Ruling Class feels increasingly less obliged to respect the law, even as the burden of law laid on the rest of us grows heavier. That's always how it works. You will never see a nation with a vast body of laws directed against both the populace and their rulers. The rulers find it necessary to discard legal inconveniences in order to make their agenda work. They are interested in power, the kind of power that suffers no arbitrary restraint. No system with a million pages of law can function if the Ruling Class is equally obliged to respect those laws - they find it personally intolerable, demanding exemptions for themselves and their special friends from the rules they lay upon lesser citizens, and the massive government system chokes and dies if it can't ignore many of the regulations it imposes upon private operations.

ObamaCare is a perfect example of all those criticisms. When a group of state Attorneys General wrote a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius recently (http://www.humanevents.com/2014/01/03/attorneys-general-denounce-unlawful-obamacare-fixes/), making many of the same points Cruz makes in this speech, it occurred to me that talking about whether ObamaCare will fail is silly - it already failed, utterly and decisively. The Affordable Care Act could not be implemented as passed; the Ruling Class and their most important political donors would have set its pages ablaze and flung them in Barack Obama's face, if he had not rewritten the ACA numerous times already. Nothing resembling the law actually passed by Congress and signed by President Obama will ever go into effect. And what we commonly refer to as "ObamaCare" is nothing resembling a "law."

[CPUd]

I thought Mitt Romney was The White Obama?

[GunnyFreedom]

Ted Cruz calls ObamaCare 'an illustration of lawlessness on a breathtaking scale' (http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2014/01/11/Ted-Cruz-calls-ObamaCare-an-illustration-of-lawlessness-on-a-breathtaking-scale)


Breitbart
11 Jan 2014


Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) has been on a tear about the rule of law lately. It's something he doesn't think the American people should be willing to surrender. He was as emphatic on the point as I've ever heard in his keynote speech for the Texas Public Policy Foundation on Friday.

Cruz stressed "we are a nation of laws, not of men" and said "if we had a president who could pick and choose which laws to follow at utter whim," it would be "seriously dangerous."

It was awfully polite of him to pose that as a hypothetical, because he knows full well that we're already there. He described ObamaCare, with its numerous illegal seat-of-the-pants fixes and suspended mandates, "an illustration of lawlessness on a breathtaking scale." He accused the media of remaining silent while Obama remorselessly abuses the rule of law because they like him and support his agenda.

Here's video of the full Cruz keynote speech. Incidentally, if you've never seen him speak before, he does this all the time - he just wanders away from the podium and delivers the whole address from memory. I've seen him talk a number of times, both in person and on video, and I've never seen him so much as pull out a note card, never mind look at a teleprompter.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y43ocG9qFg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y43ocG9qFg


So tell me, Cruz critics... where is he going wrong here? He's absolutely correct about the rule of law, and ObamaCare's near-total incompatibility with it.

Personally, I still regard the John Roberts Supreme Court decision that upheld ObamaCare to be an example of lawlessness. I don't want to put words in Sen. Cruz' mouth, but I suspect he'd at least be wiling to entertain that criticism. The Supreme Court should not be in the business of rewriting legislation on the fly to force it past Constitutional muster, or making arguments on behalf of the plaintiffs they refused to make for themselves, as in the case of the ObamaCare mandate's magical transformation into a "tax." Only sometimes it still isn't a tax, and the Obama Administration almost universally refuses to treat it as one, to the point of granting waivers from the mandate that should be blatantly illegal if it's a bona fide tax. The executive branch is not showing due respect for the Supreme Court by treating its decision as though it were written in crayon on wax paper, so why should the rest of us respect it?

In his speech, Cruz advised Democrats to "think about the next president, maybe a Republican, having the power Barack Obama has as a president who is not bound by the law." His point is easily understood, but it really should not be necessary to persuade Democrats that they'd better honor the rules now, or face the wrath of the Republican dictator who follows Obama. The point of honoring the rule of law - the essence of a lawful republic - is that you respect it even when, especially when, your agenda gives you good reasons to trample it.

Cruz makes that point well by noting that fidelity to laws binding the highest levels of the State was supposed to be one of the special and unique features of the American nation at our inception. These days, not only does the executive branch discard laws it doesn't like, and rewrite laws it finds politically inconvenient, but it's grown positively nonchalant about it.

Patriotic Democrats should be standing up to Obama lawlessness as vigorously as Republicans do, because when lawful government becomes a partisan issue... well, we don't have lawful government any more, do we? We have exactly what our Founders wanted to avoid: an unending high-stakes political battle in which factions battle for the levers of unrestricted power, and individual citizens can only hope they're not crushed beneath the stomping feet of clashing political titans.

We cannot afford to have the rule of law become entirely an instrument of the media, relevant only when they decide they want to make a big deal about a particular President's offenses. But if we are going to have such a system, it's a powerful argument in favor of voting Republican, because (as New Jersey governor Chris Christie can tell you) the media only cares about abuses of power when they're in office.

It's no coincidence that our Ruling Class feels increasingly less obliged to respect the law, even as the burden of law laid on the rest of us grows heavier. That's always how it works. You will never see a nation with a vast body of laws directed against both the populace and their rulers. The rulers find it necessary to discard legal inconveniences in order to make their agenda work. They are interested in power, the kind of power that suffers no arbitrary restraint. No system with a million pages of law can function if the Ruling Class is equally obliged to respect those laws - they find it personally intolerable, demanding exemptions for themselves and their special friends from the rules they lay upon lesser citizens, and the massive government system chokes and dies if it can't ignore many of the regulations it imposes upon private operations.

ObamaCare is a perfect example of all those criticisms. When a group of state Attorneys General wrote a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius recently (http://www.humanevents.com/2014/01/03/attorneys-general-denounce-unlawful-obamacare-fixes/), making many of the same points Cruz makes in this speech, it occurred to me that talking about whether ObamaCare will fail is silly - it already failed, utterly and decisively. The Affordable Care Act could not be implemented as passed; the Ruling Class and their most important political donors would have set its pages ablaze and flung them in Barack Obama's face, if he had not rewritten the ACA numerous times already. Nothing resembling the law actually passed by Congress and signed by President Obama will ever go into effect. And what we commonly refer to as "ObamaCare" is nothing resembling a "law."

The Oath of Office requires any elected official to pick and choose which laws are or are not Constitutional. Granted, Obama does not believe that drug prohibition is unconstitutional, therefore according to his own philosophy he would be absolutely required to enforce it. However, if we want to eliminate the requirement for a President to pick and choose which laws to enforce, then first we will need to ratify an Amendment to repeal Article 2 Section 1 Clause 8 from the US Constitution.

[jtstellar]

“You can go to Congress, you can get a conversation, you could get Democrats and Republicans who would say, ‘We ought to change our drug policy in some way,’ and you could have a real conversation, you could have hearings, you could look at the problem, you could discuss commonsense changes that maybe should happen or shouldn’t happen. This president didn’t do that. He just said, ‘The laws say one thing’ — and mind you these are criminal laws, these are laws that say if you do ‘X, Y, and Z’ you will go to prison. The president announced, ‘No, you won’t.’”

no efforts to dumb down this statement, please

does this really escape anyone's intellectual capacity to realize ted cruz is talking about the issue of executive power and instituting changes by executive power instead of the proper legislative process? drugs should be up to individual's choice, but what are you saying here, cruz has ulterior motive for picking this issue? has he not pounded obama on other issues of executive power? if that's your suspicion at least iterate it coherently.

two issues here, executive power and nullification. i think to say states have autonomy over laws that aren't constitutional in the first place is the highest ground of this argument, but criticisms over executive power shouldn't have any issue in general, and of course supreme court needs to do their job and they never do, until they do, you will always have the problem of whether it is good to enforce all the laws on the books

[pcosmar]

he would be absolutely required to enforce it.

He does not enforce shit.
He does not fail to enforce shit

He has no powers of enforcement (nor should he).

And Obamacare?
give me a fuckin' break. The "R"s have been pushing socialized medicine as long as the Dems..

These Guys are just pissed that it is not RomneyCare.

Cruz just let some "true Color" show through. and folks are in denial and don't want to see it.

[devil21]

more stupidity

uh, does this really escape anyone's intellectual to capacity to not realize ted cruz is talking about the issue of executive power and instituting changes by executive power instead of the proper legislative process? don't want to generalize so i will just say gee, some people are really getting dimmer as day goes on. have you been eating well? drugs should be up to individual's choice, but what are you saying here, cruz has ulterior motive for picking this issue? has he not pounded obama on other issues of executive power? if that's your suspicion at least learn to iterate it coherently

What part of unconstitutional do you and Cruz not understand? Federal laws banning cannabis use within a state is completely against the 10th Amendment and Article One Section Eight enumerated powers. Obama not enforcing an unconstitutional federal law is a GOOD thing.

(just noticed you edited your post....quoted post is your original, correct?)

(now you've completely changed it three times!)

[GunnyFreedom]

He does not enforce shit.
He does not fail to enforce shit

He has no powers of enforcement (nor should he).

And Obamacare?
give me a fuckin' break. The "R"s have been pushing socialized medicine as long as the Dems..

These Guys are just pissed that it is not RomneyCare.

Cruz just let some "true Color" show through. and folks are in denial and don't want to see it.

OK, replace the word "enforce" with the word "execute." A President is required to faithfully execute the laws of the United States whether he agrees with them or not -- the one exception being if he believes a given law to be unconstitutional, then he is required by his Constitutional oath of office to not execute that law.

[pcosmar]

OK, replace the word "enforce" with the word "execute." A President is required to faithfully execute the laws of the United States whether he agrees with them or not -- the one exception being if he believes a given law to be unconstitutional, then he is required by his Constitutional oath of office to not execute that law.

Ok,,
Show me one president that is out kicking in doors to execute laws.

Constitutionally,, There is NO federal Law enforcement. save for Treason and Counterfeiting,, and those have not been being enforced either.

[GunnyFreedom]

Ok,,
Show me one president that is out kicking in doors to execute laws.

Constitutionally,, There is NO federal Law enforcement. save for Treason and Counterfeiting,, and those have not been being enforced either.

Congress passes laws, and the President executes those laws. That's how the Constitution requires our government to work, that is why the President is called the Executive, and why he heads the Executive Branch. The fact that 90% of what Congress does is blatantly unconstitutional does not change the way the government is supposed to work.

This has nothing to do with police or Pinkertons or FBI or DHS, I am talking about the job description for the office as given in the US Constitution.

Article 2 Section 1 Clause 1: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."

Article 2 Section 1 Clause 8: "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.""

The 'executive power' means executing the laws of the United States which have been passed by the Legislative Branch -- assuming those laws are Constitutional. The Oath goes on to require that the President not execute those laws that violate the Constitution.

As you and I know, at least 90% (if not more) of the federal laws on the books do not follow from the Constitution, therefore the President should refuse to execute that same 90% of US Code. The problem is we have not had a President even remotely faithful to the Constitution since Calvin Coolidge.

[pcosmar]

Congress passes laws, and the President executes those laws. That's how the Constitution requires our government to work, that is why the President is called the Executive, and why he heads the Executive Branch. The fact that 90% of what Congress does is blatantly unconstitutional does not change the way the government is supposed to work.

This has nothing to do with police or Pinkertons or FBI or DHS, I am talking about the job description for the office as given in the US Constitution.

Article 2 Section 1 Clause 1: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."

Article 2 Section 1 Clause 8: "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.""

The 'executive power' means executing the laws of the United States which have been passed by the Legislative Branch -- assuming those laws are Constitutional. The Oath goes on to require that the President not execute those laws that violate the Constitution.

As you and I know, at least 90% (if not more) of the federal laws on the books do not follow from the Constitution, therefore the President should refuse to execute that same 90% of US Code. The problem is we have not had a President even remotely faithful to the Constitution since Calvin Coolidge.

So,,I understand that.

Still for the point of this thread and Cruz's worthless rant,, What is he supposed to do?
Kick in dispensary doors?

I am sure the Bureaucracy that deals with Unconstitutional Laws is trying to deal with this without a Supreme Court case that would overturn prohibition.

And I am sure there are agents of the same that would love to execute some pot smokers.

and there are the voters of the state in question.

And Cruz is still an ass.

[GunnyFreedom]

So,,I understand that.

Still for the point of this thread and Cruz's worthless rant,, What is he supposed to do?
Kick in dispensary doors?

I am sure the Bureaucracy that deals with Unconstitutional Laws is trying to deal with this without a Supreme Court case that would overturn prohibition.

And I am sure there are agents of the same that would love to execute some pot smokers.

and there are the voters of the state in question.

And Cruz is still an ass.

I'm certainly not defending Cruz here. My comments over on the article from the OP has me teaching lefties the concept of States Rights by invoking the pursuance clause of Article 6 rather than invoking the 10th Amendment. It has been my experience that by arguing "Article 6 nonpursuance" instead of "Tenth Amendment Nullification" brings across the same concept without the baggage that modern-day 'liberals' have intentionally associated with the concept of nullification.

I simply acknowledged the point that if Obama believes federal drug prohibition to be Constitutional, then he has a duty to ensure that those laws are faithfully executed.

I agree with you, and I think you are right -- Obama and the Holder DOJ do not want a US v Colorado case to appear before SCOTUS because chances are pretty good that SCOTUS will rule that the war on drugs does not follow from the powers granted in the US Constitution, which would then lead to a domino effect of States abandoning prohibition.

[twomp]

no efforts to dumb down this statement, please

does this really escape anyone's intellectual capacity to realize ted cruz is talking about the issue of executive power and instituting changes by executive power instead of the proper legislative process? drugs should be up to individual's choice, but what are you saying here, cruz has ulterior motive for picking this issue? has he not pounded obama on other issues of executive power? if that's your suspicion at least iterate it coherently.

two issues here, executive power and nullification. i think to say states have autonomy over laws that aren't constitutional in the first place is the highest ground of this argument, but criticisms over executive power shouldn't have any issue in general, and of course supreme court needs to do their job and they never do, until they do, you will always have the problem of whether it is good to enforce all the laws on the books

Because Ted Cruz is pandering to his audience? He's a lawyer so I assume that he's read the Constitution. The 10th amendment doesn't allow for Obama to what Ted Cruz wants him to do. Obviously that has escaped your intellectual capacity. Maybe take Cruz's nutts out your mouth and you might be able to realize that.

[Matthew5]

I believe Cruz's subtle attempt at calling out Obama's abuse of power went over the head of most readers...

[Christian Liberty]

I believe Cruz's subtle attempt at calling out Obama's abuse of power went over the head of most readers...

If "abuse of power" means NOT throwing people in jail despite the fact that some stupid piece of paper says you should, I am all for "abuses of power."

[Matthew5]

If "abuse of power" means NOT throwing people in jail despite the fact that some stupid piece of paper says you should, I am all for "abuses of power."

He's bluffing and knew the President wouldn't call him on it. It's an all-around win for him. Anti-Pot Republicans will see it as support for their cause while the Tea Party will see it has highlighting the President's total disregard for the legislative branch.

[devil21]

I believe Cruz's subtle attempt at calling out Obama's abuse of power went over the head of most readers...

If this is an example he chooses, considering the mountains of crap to call Obama out on, he's clueless and on the wrong side of history. His comments tell me he's just playing politician and will say whatever he thinks will endear him to whoever his particular audience at the moment is, even at the expense of contradicting himself. IOW, he has no principles, regardless of his selective understanding of the 10th.

[Matthew5]

If this is an example he chooses, considering the mountains of crap to call Obama out on, he's clueless and on the wrong side of history. His comments tell me he's just playing politician and will say whatever he thinks will endear him to whoever his particular audience at the moment is, even at the expense of contradicting himself. IOW, he has no principles, regardless of his selective understanding of the 10th.

But what does he have to gain by calling on Obama to exercise power? Do conservative GOP/Tea Party voters hate pot and state's rights more than they hate Obama?

[devil21]

But what does he have to gain by calling on Obama to exercise power? Do conservative GOP/Tea Party voters hate pot and state's rights more than they hate Obama?

I don't know. Seems like Cruz is betting on it though. Losing bet. (Well, unless he's purposely propping up to be another losing GOP candidate that will alienate moderates and the occasional Dem. Keep up that WoD bs, RNC. It's working! Not.)

[whoisjohngalt]

He's still far, far better than that piece of shit, Dewhurst. Just ask any Texan. Obviously, he is not the man we hoped.

[twomp]

He's still far, far better than that piece of shit, Dewhurst. Just ask any Texan. Obviously, he is not the man we hoped.

The "average" Texan is just like any other GOP cheerleader. They have no clue what Cruz is doing besides what Fox news and the Glenn Beck's of the world are telling them. Which is Ted Cruz's poo poo smell like roses. And of course the the GOP cheerleaders are lining up to take a whiff.