Christie to Colorado: Pot party ends with me

[GURPS]

I guess you missed the end of that story..where the extensive investigation determined that he was telling the truth when he said he had absolutely nothing to do with it. You can be excused for that lapse..the media at large barely reported that because it totally screwed up a pet narrative.

Disclaimer: I'm not a Christie fan...I just despise the dishonest media.

Shh ....



don't confuse Francis with facts

 

[Hank]

Shh ....



don't confuse Francis with facts

Ha. Coming from you! Dick!

 

[Midnightrider]

So, the constitution doesn't say to faithfully execute the laws? And, therefore, by taking an oath to uphold the constitution, isn't he saying he'll faithfully execute the laws?

But, if you want to play semantics, you are correct that the oath does not specifically say "faithfully execute the laws", it says to uphold the constitution, which says to faithfully execute the laws. So, I was using common sense and the associative property, which is beyond you, and I shouldn't have assumed you had that ability. You are right, I went to far in assessing your abilities.

Now, that doesn't change the fact that he's not doing it. He's not taking care that laws be faithfully executed, and therefore he is not preserving and protecting and defending the constitution, and therefore he is not living up to his oath nor is he living up to his job requirements within the constitution.

Drug laws MAY be unconstitutional, or they may be. It's not up to the president to decide. Drug laws exist, and he is not executing them by explicit direction (not "prioritizing" something ahead of it, explicit direction to not uphold the law). How does that fit into the constitutional requirements?

About that.....

Andrew Jackson provided perhaps the clearest explanation of coordinate construction.


The Congress, the Executive and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for final decision. The opinion of judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point, the president is independent of both.

Thomas Jefferson put this principle into action during his presidency, saying he had a duty to arrest the execution of the Sedition Act. He explained his actions in an 1804 letter to Abigail Adams.


I discharged every person under punishment or prosecution under the Sedition law, because I considered & now consider that law to be a nullity as absolute and as palpable as if Congress had ordered us to fall down and worship a golden image; and that it was as much my duty to arrest it’s execution in every stage, as it would have been to have rescued from the fiery furnace those who should have been cast into it for refusing to worship their image. [Emphasis added]

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/201...ent-should-not-enforce-every-act-of-congress/

 

[This_person]

About that.....

Jackson wrote that in a veto, not as a separate act wherein he was not living up to his constitutional authority. As I said earlier, if the president is vetoing a bill based on his belief in the bill not being constitutional, it is his perfect right and even duty (as he saw it) to do so. The veto was for the bank of the United States, by the way.

Jefferson also met the requirement's of the constitution. He pardoned people convicted based on his belief that the law was unconstitutional. He also challenged the balance of power by saying the Supreme Court, calling something constitutional, could not stop the president from feeling it wasn't and acting on that. Are you prepared for President Walker to simply, by executive action, take down SS without legislative action, even after SCOTUS has deemed it constitutional? Do you realize that over 200 years of American history says Jefferson was wrong? Do you get that Jefferson tried to stop the seditions act by state nullification, which also didn't hold water over history?

But, please, tell me how the president is faithfully executing the law by specifically saying "don't execute this law"? He's not vetoing it, as Jackson did. He's not pardoning those convicted, as Jefferson did. Those things are within the authorities of the president. How is this president meeting the Constitution?

 

[Midnightrider]

Jackson wrote that in a veto, not as a separate act wherein he was not living up to his constitutional authority. As I said earlier, if the president is vetoing a bill based on his belief in the bill not being constitutional, it is his perfect right and even duty (as he saw it) to do so. The veto was for the bank of the United States, by the way.

Jefferson also met the requirement's of the constitution. He pardoned people convicted based on his belief that the law was unconstitutional. He also challenged the balance of power by saying the Supreme Court, calling something constitutional, could not stop the president from feeling it wasn't and acting on that. Are you prepared for President Walker to simply, by executive action, take down SS without legislative action, even after SCOTUS has deemed it constitutional? Do you realize that over 200 years of American history says Jefferson was wrong? Do you get that Jefferson tried to stop the seditions act by state nullification, which also didn't hold water over history?

But, please, tell me how the president is faithfully executing the law by specifically saying "don't execute this law"? He's not vetoing it, as Jackson did. He's not pardoning those convicted, as Jefferson did. Those things are within the authorities of the president. How is this president meeting the Constitution?

:sad:

 

[This_person]

:sad:

A veto, a pardon, and an executive order to ignore law. You don't see those as different?

 

[Midnightrider]

A veto, a pardon, and an executive order to ignore law. You don't see those as different?

Obama didn't issue any executive order to ignore MJ law.

 

[This_person]

Obama didn't issue any executive order to ignore MJ law.

No, but his administration has. And to ignore banking laws designed to support the drug laws. With the president's express knowledge and likely direction. Even if it weren't at his direction, it's clearly with his knowledge and therefore complete responsibility.

Now, do you understand that there is a difference between a veto, pardon, and actively, by direction, not faithfully executing the law?

 

[Midnightrider]

No, but his administration has. And to ignore banking laws designed to support the drug laws. With the president's express knowledge and likely direction. Even if it weren't at his direction, it's clearly with his knowledge and therefore complete responsibility.

Now, do you understand that there is a difference between a veto, pardon, and actively, by direction, not faithfully executing the law?

Sweet Jesus, we are done here.

 

[This_person]

Sweet Jesus, we are done here.

You forgot to say that you were bored first.

Truth too much?

 

[PrchJrkr]

They have the power and the disdain for the man but they still don't impeach. That should tell you something.

Maybe they feel that if they impeach his sorry ass, his minions in the ghettos will rise up and start the war. This would call for Martial Law, and he would reign as the supreme leader. Muhuhahaha!

 

[Salvador]

It’s not easy being the DEA these days. After an unprecedented losing streak on Capitol Hill, the once-untouchable Drug Enforcement Administration suffered last week what might be considered the ultimate indignity: A Senate panel, for the first time, voted in favor of legal, recreational marijuana.

Last Thursday, the Appropriations Committee voted 16-14 on an amendment to allow marijuana businesses access to federal banking services, a landmark shift that will help states like Colorado, where pot is legal, fully integrate marijuana into their economies. As significant as the vote was, it’s only the latest vote in a remarkable run of success marijuana advocates have had this year on Capitol Hill.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/dea-marijuana-120674.html#ixzz3hcXvNi3H