PDA

View Full Version : House GOP passes bill to force Obama to crack down on legal weed in states that allow it




charrob
03-13-2014, 11:50 PM
Legislation approved by House Republicans would seek to force President Barack Obama to crack down on marijuana in states that have made the drug legal for medical or recreational use.

The House passed the Enforce the Law Act by a vote of 233-181 on Wednesday. The bill was introduced by Reps. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Jim Gerlach (R-PA) to allow Congress to sue the president.

A committee report submitted by Goodlatte cited the Obama administration’s decision to not intervene with marijuana legalization efforts in various states as an example of executive overreach.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/13/house-gop-passes-bill-to-force-obama-to-crack-down-on-legal-weed-in-states-that-allow-it/

Roll Call of the vote: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/113-2014/h124

Keith and stuff
03-14-2014, 01:01 AM
Sorry. My comment was based on a misleading thread title. I am sorry that I didn't double check the facts before commenting.

invisible
03-14-2014, 01:04 AM
WTF! Looking at the roll call for this one, have our good Congressmen lost their minds? Amash! Massie! What were you guys thinking? I feel incredibly let down here, virtually every even halfway decent member of Congress voted for this crap. I'll certainly be registering a complaint to Bridenstine's office over this one, especially considering how popular 10th Amendment issues are here.

Danke
03-14-2014, 04:13 AM
"Federal law, however, still considers the possession and sale of marijuana to be a crime."

Really? I wonder to whom this applies. Because they needed to amend the Constitution to prohibit alcohol.

Maybe we should ask these politicians to bring this up for an amendment. Watch that effort fail and then tell them from now on to pound sand.

qh4dotcom
03-14-2014, 04:38 AM
Can someone please explain to me how a bill passed by the GOP is going to force Obama to do anything? Isn't he doing whatever he wants right now, regardless of laws already passed by Congress? and can't he veto it?

GunnyFreedom
03-14-2014, 04:53 AM
So, the entire Republican Congress, including Amash and Massie, voted to piss on the US Constitution. Lovely.

Spikender
03-14-2014, 04:57 AM
So, the entire Republican Congress, including Amash and Massie, voted to piss on the US Constitution. Lovely.

What in high heaven were they thinking, seriously?

Either way, shit bill, won't pass, I pray for a veto from the POTUS.

GunnyFreedom
03-14-2014, 05:15 AM
What in high heaven were they thinking, seriously?

Understatement of the year.


Either way, shit bill, won't pass, I pray for a veto from the POTUS.

It blows my ever-lovin mind. If we were talking about a law that followed from the Constitution, then I could see this kind of action. If a law does follow from the Constitution then non-pursuance does not apply, the 10th Amendment does not give primacy to the States, and Congress can therefore force the President's hand (given a large enough majority to overcome a veto).

However, if a law does not follow from the Constitution, then it would be a direct and incontrovertible violation of their oaths of office to vote for this thing, and quite frankly the federal war on drugs is simply not authorized by the US Constitution.

So I don't know about Amash, but I do know Massie reads the forums; so I have to say, WTF guys?

Don't get me wrong, I had a couple bad votes so I get it. It gets totally insane and it can get difficult to separate the propaganda from the reality sometimes. I never would have imagined how hard it was until I witnessed it first hand.

So was this a bad vote, or did you guys suddenly forget about that whole "Constitution" thing?

GunnyFreedom
03-14-2014, 05:22 AM
I went looking on fedbook for Amash's explanation of this vote, and all the sudden I can't find Amash's explanations on any of his pages anymore.

um.

w

t

f

?

XNavyNuke
03-14-2014, 05:37 AM
Note to self, move Raw Story to same column as Alex Jones.

I see nothing in the language of the bill that specifically addresses legal weed. I also see nothing that forces the any administration to actually DO anything. President have ignored court decisions in the past against them because who is going to enforce them?

Actual bill text.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr4138/text

That there is a non- binding report that mentions weed is unsurprising. No doubt some staffer added it because it would resonate with social conservatives. I would find it equally unsurprising if a report by the minority included language mentioning enforecment of an onerous environmental law in an effort to placate their base.

XNN

GunnyFreedom
03-14-2014, 06:22 AM
Note to self, move Raw Story to same column as Alex Jones.

I see nothing in the language of the bill that specifically addresses legal weed. I also see nothing that forces the any administration to actually DO anything. President have ignored court decisions in the past against them because who is going to enforce them?

Actual bill text.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr4138/text

That there is a non- binding report that mentions weed is unsurprising. No doubt some staffer added it because it would resonate with social conservatives. I would find it equally unsurprising if a report by the minority included language mentioning enforecment of an onerous environmental law in an effort to placate their base.

XNN

Thanks, good catch. I even looked up all of the referenced US Code and you are right. There is no reference, direct oblique or otherwise, to cannabis, drugs, or any such thing. It appears the article referenced in the OP is nothing but hyperbole on hyperbole.

Spikender
03-14-2014, 06:48 AM
Thanks, good catch. I even looked up all of the referenced US Code and you are right. There is no reference, direct oblique or otherwise, to cannabis, drugs, or any such thing. It appears the article referenced in the OP is nothing but hyperbole on hyperbole.

Good.

Guess I slipped on this one, I usually try to do my research before commenting.

Oh well, can't be right all the time.

erowe1
03-14-2014, 07:36 AM
Here's the text of the bill. There's nothing in it that looks specifically oriented to the drug war. I'm not sure what the implications of it are for states legalizing marijuana. But the thread title is misleading.


113th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 4138

AN ACT

To protect the separation of powers in the Constitution of the United States by ensuring that the President takes care that the laws be faithfully executed, and for other purposes.

1.Short title
This Act may be cited as the Executive Needs to Faithfully Observe and Respect Congressional Enactments of the Law Act of 2014 or the ENFORCE the Law Act of 2014.

2.Authorization to bring civil action for violation of the take care clause
(a)In general
Upon the adoption of a resolution of a House of Congress declaring that the President, the head of any department or agency of the United States, or any other officer or employee of the United States has established or implemented a formal or informal policy, practice, or procedure to refrain from enforcing, applying, following, or administering any provision of a Federal statute, rule, regulation, program, policy, or other law in violation of the requirement that the President take care that the laws be faithfully executed under Article II, section 3, clause 5, of the Constitution of the United States, that House is authorized to bring a civil action in accordance with subsection (c), and to seek relief pursuant to sections 2201 and 2202 of title 28, United States Code. A civil action brought pursuant to this subsection may be brought by a single House or both Houses of Congress jointly, if both Houses have adopted such a resolution.

(b)Resolution described
For the purposes of subsection (a), the term resolution means only a resolution—

(1)the title of which is as follows: Relating to the application of Article II, section 3, clause 5, of the Constitution of the United States.;
(2)which does not have a preamble; and
(3)the matter after the resolving clause which is as follows: That _______ has failed to meet the requirement of Article II, section 3, clause 5, of the Constitution of the United States to take care that a law be faithfully executed, with respect to _________. (the blank spaces being appropriately filled in with the President or the person on behalf of the President, and the administrative action in question described in subsection (a), respectively).
(c)Special rules
If the House of Representatives or the Senate brings a civil action pursuant to subsection (a), the following rules shall apply:

(1)The action shall be filed in a United States district court of competent jurisdiction and shall be heard by a 3-judge court convened pursuant to section 2284 of title 28, United States Code.
(2)A final decision in the action shall be reviewable only by appeal directly to the Supreme Court of the United States. Such appeal shall be taken by the filing of a notice of appeal within 10 days, and the filing of a jurisdictional statement within 30 days, of the entry of the final decision.
(3)It shall be the duty of the United States district courts and the Supreme Court of the United States to advance on the docket and to expedite to the greatest possible extent the disposition of any such action and appeal.
3.Report
Not later than the last day of the first fiscal year quarter that begins after the date of the enactment of this Act, and quarterly thereafter, the Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate, a report on the costs of any civil action brought pursuant to this Act, including any attorney fees of any attorney that has been hired to provide legal services in connection with a civil action brought pursuant to this Act.

Passed the House of Representatives March 12, 2014.

Clerk.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr4138/text

kcchiefs6465
03-14-2014, 07:46 AM
I went looking on fedbook for Amash's explanation of this vote, and all the sudden I can't find Amash's explanations on any of his pages anymore.

um.

w

t

f

?
He's been behind a little bit. I wouldn't expect an explanation for a couple weeks.

I'm still waiting on an explanation, myself.

erowe1
03-14-2014, 07:53 AM
Thanks, good catch. I even looked up all of the referenced US Code and you are right. There is no reference, direct oblique or otherwise, to cannabis, drugs, or any such thing. It appears the article referenced in the OP is nothing but hyperbole on hyperbole.

From the OP, the connection to that comes from a committee report on the bill. But they don't give any explanation of what that report has to do with the actual language of the bill or if the bill, as voted on, even reflects the concerns that raised by that committee report.

phill4paul
03-14-2014, 07:56 AM
I would imagine that the bill was sponsored with the intention of enforcement of border laws dealing with illegal non-citizens. However, it could, most certainly, apply to drug legislation.

erowe1
03-14-2014, 08:02 AM
I would imagine that the bill was sponsored with the intention of enforcement of border laws dealing with illegal non-citizens. However, it could, most certainly, apply to drug legislation.

Maybe. But I'm not sure about that.

The executive branch can never exhaustively enforce all laws. It always has to allocate its resources according to some kind of prioritization. With the budget the DEA gets, it has to decide which drug laws to enforce, and where, and how, and which ones not to. If it uses the budget it has for the purpose of doing the job Congress has given it, and if in doing that it saves resources by not fighting marijuana that's legal at the state level so that it can use those resources for other more important things, then I doubt that there would be any hope of Congress successfully suing the POTUS for failing to execute the law faithfully.

And that's all without bothering to worry about the fact that the whole DEA is unconstitutional in the first place.

kcchiefs6465
03-14-2014, 08:06 AM
From the OP, the connection to that comes from a committee report on the bill. But they don't give any explanation of what that report has to do with the actual language of the bill or if the bill, as voted on, even reflects the concerns that raised by that committee report.
It is about the president's selective enforcement on that, DOMA, and illegal immigration. That's what conservatives, in general, have been harping about. Not that Barack Obama collects data from the entirety of the United States, or murders people with impunity, they are worried of the laws he selectively ignores when it comes to petty social issues.

While it is not within the president's authority to selectively enforce the law, it is within his duty to veto unconstitutional laws as well as disobey, and attempt to remove unconstitutional ones. Of course, the DEA and related government agencies are unconstitutional, absent a bastardization of the General Welfare Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, or even more absurdly, though they do use it with regards to medical cannabis, the Interstate Commerce Clause.

I have no doubt that Massie and Amash were simply voting so that their opinion be known that the president isn't a king. Most others voting for this simply want to enforce their moral standards on other people. Or rather, that the president listens to whatever 51% of the ticks in Washington can come to agreement on no matter the Constitutional merit. Indeed, they think something becomes Constitutional because they vote on it and if it is not, "leave it to the courts" is their response. As if those tenured for life by means of political partisanship and the system have no conflict of interest with regards to deciding what is or is not Constitutional.

erowe1
03-14-2014, 08:25 AM
It is about the president's selective enforcement on that, DOMA, and illegal immigration. That's what conservatives, in general, have been harping about.

I haven't noticed conservatives in general harping about enforcing federal marijuana laws in states that legalize marijuana. There may be a few moderate Republicans doing that. But I doubt it's a conservative thing.

Snew
03-14-2014, 08:28 AM
Can't say I've been impressed with Amash lately.

kcchiefs6465
03-14-2014, 08:30 AM
I haven't noticed conservatives in general harping about enforcing federal marijuana laws in states that legalize marijuana. There may be a few moderate Republicans doing that. But I doubt it's a conservative thing.
I apologize.

I actually debated whether or not to use quotes around "conservative." It's what they call themselves, at least.