The Law Is The Law?

[John T. Kennedy]

Yesterday on CNN I heard Ron Paul say he would pardon all those convicted of non-violent drug crimes. But at the debate when illegal immigration came up he said "The law is the law and it should be enforced".

Which is it? Why should some laws be enforced and others be gutted by pardon?

[Brutus]

Please point to the Constitutional authority for the Federal government to determine what chemicals may be ingested? An amendment was required to make Prohibition pass Constitutional muster. Federal drug crimes are therefore non-crimes. He wouldn't be able to affect State laws or pardon people convicted in State courts.

The Federal lack of authority for controlling the borders isn't as clear.

Also, this is similar to the problem of Social Security. It ought not to be, but the social chaos caused by removing it is considered to be too great without transition (some argue that cutting the chord suddenly is a better solution quite convincingly, but this is Dr. Paul's position) to allow social structures to resume their functions.

I don't speak for Ron Paul.

[danberkeley]

Because some (read most) federal laws are unconstitutional... in other words, federal drug laws are unconstitutional, while the federal governement has jurisdiction over immigration,

[theczar1776]

Good point, but still, why not leave it up to the states to decide on immigration. This is a stupid argument, of course, but i still am curious what arguments may be made for or against it.

[Brian in Maryland]

Please point to the Constitutional authority for the Federal government to determine what chemicals may be ingested? An amendment was required to make Prohibition pass Constitutional muster. Federal drug crimes are therefore non-crimes. He wouldn't be able to affect State laws or pardon people convicted in State courts.

The Federal lack of authority for controlling the borders isn't as clear.

Also, this is similar to the problem of Social Security. It ought not to be, but the social chaos caused by removing it is considered to be too great without transition (some argue that cutting the chord suddenly is a better solution quite convincingly, but this is Dr. Paul's position) to allow social structures to resume their functions.

I don't speak for Ron Paul.

Why wouldn't a president be able to pardon a person convicted of a state crime?
If a person's rights are being violated they are being violated.
The purpose of a government is to protect the rights of the people.

[drpiotrowski]

Immigration is an issue that the federal government has authority to deal with, as provided by Article I. Section 8:

"[Congress shall have the power] To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."

You mention non-violent drug criminals. The federal government has no authority to pass any laws regarding an individual's chemical choices, therefore federal law is not "the law" here, but is rather null and void.

Hope this clears things up.

[John T. Kennedy]

Please point to the Constitutional authority for the Federal government to determine what chemicals may be ingested?

What gives the constitution legitimate authority?

[drpiotrowski]

Why wouldn't a president be able to pardon a person convicted of a state crime?
If a person's rights are being violated they are being violated.
The purpose of a government is to protect the rights of the people.

From what I gather, the President only has the power to pardon those who have committed crimes against the laws of the United States (i.e. Federal Laws).

Article II. Section 2.
"and he [the President] shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

Normally, when "United States" is written in the constitution, it refers to the federal government. Usually, if individual states are included within the definition, the words "or each individual state" are added.

This is merely my hypothesis. More research into the corresponding federalist papers would be helpful here. I'll look into this later, because I'm interested, too.

[drpiotrowski]

What gives the constitution legitimate authority?

"We The People."

[John T. Kennedy]

"We The People."

Who would that refer to? At the time of ratification only a very small fraction of Americans were even allowed to vote, and not all who had the vote supported the Constitution. Women, slaves, native Americans and even most men without property had no say in the document. Hard to see how it could be binding on them. And even among voters there were plenty of dissenters; why would it be binding on them?

And what would their agreement have to do with us today anyway?

Who is "We The People"?