Ron Paul Is In!

[Rouge]

Is Ron Paul for the legalization of drugs or does he want the feds to get out the drug business? In any case, legislation must go thru the Congress to achieve those goals. Good luck with that getting by them bible thumping republicanistas. And even if he could shackle the DEA and the ODCP, the question of legalization would be left up to each State to decide. Good luck with that getting anywhere anytime soon, especially on the east coast. Look at the stalling tactics that fat fucker guv in NJ is engaging in right now, despite legislation to implement their MMJ law next mon.

 

[EastFortRock]

No one owns Ron Paul, as far I can tell, he isn't somebodies meat puppet.

 

[gaiusmarius]

Constitutional scholars have argued the degree of federal authority since the Constitution was signed into law. Paul's it but a single opinion.

However, Paul has a democratic process to work with. If enough of the electorate agrees with his policy proposals, he'll be vindicated. Until then, many voters see Mr. Paul as unelectable.

no, constitutional scholars agree on most things in the constitution, it is thankfully written in simple language and doesn't leave wiggle room unless you change the meaning of words. even constitutional professor Obama agreed that so many things Bush was doing and he is doing too now, are/were unconstitutional. just listen to his speeches as a candidate, it's not that the scholars don't agree, it's that presidents stop caring about the constitution when it limits their power. they find lawyers who are prepared to tell them what ever they want to hear with regards to the constitution and any other laws it seems.

 

[gaiusmarius]

Is Ron Paul for the legalization of drugs or does he want the feds to get out the drug business? In any case, legislation must go thru the Congress to achieve those goals. Good luck with that getting by them bible thumping republicanistas. And even if he could shackle the DEA and the ODCP, the question of legalization would be left up to each State to decide. Good luck with that getting anywhere anytime soon, especially on the east coast. Look at the stalling tactics that fat fucker guv in NJ is engaging in right now, despite legislation to implement their MMJ law next mon.

yes Ron Paul is for individual free choice in all things as long as you don't infringe on an others rights. i believe it goes under the right to pursue happiness. if smoking cannabis makes you happy it's constitutionally protected in the strictest understanding of the words. the magic phrase is that you can't do anything that infringes on an others rights.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

no, constitutional scholars agree on most things in the constitution, it is thankfully written in simple language and doesn't leave wiggle room unless you change the meaning of words.

On the contrary. This is a brief excerpt, check the link for more understanding of our fundamental differences.

Constitutional Topic: Constitutional Interpretation

Literalism - historical
Historical literalists believe that the contemporary writings of the Framers are not relevant to any interpretation of the Constitution. The only thing one needs to interpret the Constitution is a literal reading of the words contained therein, with an expert knowledge in the 18th century meaning of those words. The debates leading to the final draft are not relevant, the Federalist Papers are not relevant - only the words.


The historical literalist takes a similar look at the Constitution as an originalist does, but the literalist has no interest in expanding beyond the text for answers to questions. For example, an historical literalist will see the militia of the 2nd Amendment as referring to all able-bodied men from 17 to 45, just as in the late 18th century, and this interpretation will color that person's reading of the 2nd Amendment.

Literalism - contemporary
Very similar to an historical literalist, a contemporary literalist looks only to the words of the Constitution for guidance, but this literalist has no interest in the historical meaning of the words. The contemporary literalist looks to modern dictionaries to determine the meaning of the words of the Constitution, ignoring precedent and legal dissertation, and relying solely on the definition of the words.


Just as the historical literalist view parallels the originalist view, but much more narrow in focus, so too does the contemporary literalist mirror the modernist; and again, the main difference is the literalist looks only to the words of the Constitution for meaning. To expand on the 2nd Amendment example, the contemporary literalist will view the militia as the modern National Guard, and this will color that person's views on the 2nd.
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_intr.html

I don't agree with the Patriot Act but it passed an act of Congress. The president signed it into law. I won't get into constitutional aspects because it's as broad as it is long.

I'd like to see the Patriot Act repealed. For that matter, I'd like to see the entire Dept Of Homeland Security declared unconstitutional. But the representatives we put in office voted in favor. Would take an act of Congress to undo the evil we unleashed.

even constitutional professor Obama agreed that so many things Bush was doing and he is doing too now, are/were unconstitutional. just listen to his speeches as a candidate, it's not that the scholars don't agree, it's that presidents stop caring about the constitution when it limits their power. they find lawyers who are prepared to tell them what ever they want to hear with regards to the constitution and any other laws it seems.

I get the feeling that respective president's find their plans thwarted by policy differences or politics. Remember, Obama wanted to try accused terrorists as criminals in US courts. With staunch opposition, he had no choice but to leave Guantanamo open.

Our system of government awards the rule of law to the majority. Unfortunately, that leaves lots of folks to disagree.

 

[SpasticGramps]

I honestly think it's going to be Mitt Romney.

I like Ron. I'm going to support him, but I don't think he'll get the Republican nomination. Ben might bust a cap in ass anyway.

Mitt Romney and Obama. Gotta love the feeling of total disenfranchised.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

IMO, it'll be Hunt (if he runs.)

 

[Yes4Prop215]

man i was happy to hear huckabee ducked out but looks like mitt romney is still there....

republicans are stupid as fuck...they need to put RP on their ballot that will draw alot of independant and libertarian votes away.....most right wingers are gonna vote for whoever they put up there anyways, they wont be losing any votes to obama if RP gets up there...


one can dream....


i bet if you took two polls...one Obama vs Romney and another Obama vs Ron Paul....RP would draw away a nice percentage of democratic votes....

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I saw a poll that if elected today, Obama beats Huck (not running) 52/37 and Romney 52/35. I'd be interested to how Paul fares in a similar poll. I'm afraid Paul supporters would start to understand that Paul's biggest obstacle is voters.

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

On the contrary. This is a brief excerpt, check the link for more understanding of our fundamental differences.


I don't agree with the Patriot Act but it passed an act of Congress. The president signed it into law. I won't get into constitutional aspects because it's as broad as it is long.

I'd like to see the Patriot Act repealed. For that matter, I'd like to see the entire Dept Of Homeland Security declared unconstitutional. But the representatives we put in office voted in favor. Would take an act of Congress to undo the evil we unleashed.



I get the feeling that respective president's find their plans thwarted by policy differences or politics. Remember, Obama wanted to try accused terrorists as criminals in US courts. With staunch opposition, he had no choice but to leave Guantanamo open.

Our system of government awards the rule of law to the majority. Unfortunately, that leaves lots of folks to disagree.

^you mean the many American versions of the Gestapo

 

[thighrod]

You guys are getting close to legalization. You know why? Because everyone but the Dems are making this their issue. Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are openly pro-weed. Newt Gingrich just called for an end to drug war. Even Pat Robertson from ther evangelical right has called for lenience when it comes to weed.

As soon as this becomes official Republican policy, all that is left is for the Dems to cave, which is what they do best.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

That's funny. The only active supporter on the federal level is Barney Frank. He introduces some sort of demcrim or mmj bill every session. Unfortunately it doesn't get any father than that.

thighrod, you're the only one I've seen actually suggesting that conservatives are driving reform. Show me a state with a newly elected republican majority that hasn't tried to roll back hard earned reforms in med states.

 

[dagnabit]

follow me on this one as it gets convoluted...

Dr. Paul is the only candidate that could beat 'O in a primary.
My reasoning is thus:
republikunts would vote for ANYONE who is not 'O
Dr. Paul is the only candidate who WILL split some of 'O's vote as there are dumbocrats who would cross that line to vote for the good doctor.
now the youth vote is SQUARELY behind Dr. Paul (as evidenced by his huge internet support base)
he also picks up the disenfranchised "non voter" block.

the REAL stumbling block is the old guard republitards in the primary.
even faux news has been giving Dr. Paul legit attention this cycle.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

as for the erroneous assertion that it would require an act of congress to legalize/reschedule.
let us remember it did not take an act of congress to create the FDA or the DEA nor did it EVER take an act of congress to schedule MJ as sch.I
the president appoints the commissioner of the FDA .
like the FCC the executive branch basically controls the show(FCC board being balanced with 2 (R) 2(D) and the tie breaker being the appointee)
the executive has the influence to "get 'er done" so to speak...
BTWur current executive head appointed a former monsanto VP as "food safety czar" hows that for being a wholly owned subsidiary?!?!?

 

[tr1ck_]

You guys are getting close to legalization. You know why? Because everyone but the Dems are making this their issue. Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are openly pro-weed. Newt Gingrich just called for an end to drug war. Even Pat Robertson from ther evangelical right has called for lenience when it comes to weed.

As soon as this becomes official Republican policy, all that is left is for the Dems to cave, which is what they do best.

All that is left is the dems? As of right now the republicans are repealing and tightening laws in almost every mmj state. Giving rep more control would be a bad thing for marijuana laws...

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

follow me on this one as it gets convoluted...

Dr. Paul is the only candidate that could beat 'O in a primary.
My reasoning is thus:
republikunts would vote for ANYONE who is not 'O
Dr. Paul is the only candidate who WILL split some of 'O's vote as there are dumbocrats who would cross that line to vote for the good doctor.
now the youth vote is SQUARELY behind Dr. Paul (as evidenced by his huge internet support base)
he also picks up the disenfranchised "non voter" block.

the REAL stumbling block is the old guard republitards in the primary.
even faux news has been giving Dr. Paul legit attention this cycle.

I get your reasoning. I just don't think Mr. Paul will get any more votes then those failing to look at his public statements. IMO, he's pretty far to the right of middle America.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

as for the erroneous assertion that it would require an act of congress to legalize/reschedule.
let us remember it did not take an act of congress to create the FDA or the DEA nor did it EVER take an act of congress to schedule MJ as sch.I

(Wiki)The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) was enacted into law by the Congress of the United States as Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970.[1]

Placing a drug or other substance in a certain Schedule or removing it from a certain Schedule is primarily based on 21 U.S.C.

(aka US Code)

(Wiki)The Code of Laws of the United States of America (United States Code, U.S. Code or U.S.C.) is a compilation and codification of the general and permanent federal laws of the United States. It contains 50 titles[1] (along with a further 4 proposed titles[2]) and is published every six years by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives.[3]

the president appoints the commissioner of the FDA .
like the FCC the executive branch basically controls the show(FCC board being balanced with 2 (R) 2(D) and the tie breaker being the appointee)
the executive has the influence to "get 'er done" so to speak...
BTWur current executive head appointed a former monsanto VP as "food safety czar" hows that for being a wholly owned subsidiary?!?!?

I think you're mixing up boards and departments. "Czars" are indeed appointed by the president w/o congressional interference. But these administrative executives manage departments staffed with career employees. Employees that (under law) are supposed to be hired free of political persuasion. These departments run according to existing law, not according to czarist decree.

 

[dagnabit]

The Drug Enforcement Administration was established on 1 July 1973, by Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1973, signed by President Richard Nixon on 28 March 1973

The FDA is led by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

BTW:
DR.(that means doctor) paul is not so much right or left but more right vs. wrong.

you get waaaaay to caught up in labels some time

below is the power of the executive to change drug policy in action!!!

To the Congress of the United States:

Drug abuse is one of the most vicious and corrosive forces attacking the foundations of American society today. It is a major cause of crime and a merciless destroyer of human lives. We must fight it with all of the resources at our command.

This Administration has declared all-out, global war on the drug menace. As I reported to the Congress earlier this month in my State of the Union message, there is evidence of significant progress on a number of fronts in that war.

Both the rate of new addiction to heroin and the number of narcotic-related deaths showed an encouraging downturn last year. More drug addicts and abusers are in treatment and rehabilitation programs than ever before.

Progress in pinching off the supply of illicit drugs was evident in last year's stepped-up volume of drug seizures worldwide--which more than doubled in 1972 over the 1971 level.

Arrests of traffickers have risen by more than one-third since 1971. Prompt Congressional action on my proposal for mandatory minimum sentences for pushers of hard drugs will help ensure that convictions stemming from such arrests lead to actual imprisonment of the guilty.

Notwithstanding these gains, much more must be done. The resilience of the international drug trade remains grimly impressive--current estimates suggest that we still intercept only a small fraction of all the heroin and cocaine entering this country. Local police still find that more than one of every three suspects arrested for street crimes is a narcotic abuser or addict. And the total number of Americans addicted to narcotics, suffering terribly themselves and inflicting their suffering on countless others, still stands in the hundreds of thousands.

A UNIFIED COMMAND FOR DRUG ENFORCEMENT

Seeking ways to intensify our counteroffensive against this menace, I am asking the Congress today to join with this Administration in strengthening and streamlining the Federal drug law enforcement effort.

Funding for this effort has increased sevenfold during the past five years, from $36 million in fiscal year 1969 to $257 million in fiscal year 1974--more money is not the most pressing enforcement need at present. Nor is there a primary need for more manpower working on the problem, over 2,100 new agents having already been added to the Federal drug enforcement agencies under this Administration, an increase of more than 250 percent over the 1969 level.

The enforcement work could benefit significantly, however, from consolidation of our anti-drug forces under a single unified command. Right now the Federal Government is fighting the war on drug abuse under a distinct handicap, for its efforts are those of a loosely confederated alliance facing a resourceful, elusive, worldwide enemy. Admiral Mahan, the master naval strategist, described this handicap precisely when he wrote that "Granting the same aggregate of force, it is never as great in two hands as in one, because it is not perfectly concentrated."

More specifically, the drug law enforcement activities of the United States now are not merely in two hands but in half a dozen. Within the Department of Justice, with no overall direction below the level of the Attorney General, these fragmented forces include the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, the Office for Drug Abuse Law Enforcement, the Office of National Narcotics Intelligence, and certain activities of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. The Treasury Department is also heavily engaged in enforcement work through the Bureau of Customs.

This aggregation of Federal activities has grown up rapidly over the past few years in response to the urgent need for stronger anti-drug measures. It has enabled us to make a very encouraging beginning in the accelerated drug enforcement drive of this Administration.

But it also has serious operational and organizational shortcomings. Certainly the cold-blooded underworld networks that funnel narcotics from suppliers all over the world into the veins of American drug victims are no respecters of the bureaucratic dividing lines that now complicate our anti-drug efforts. On the contrary, these modern-day slave traders can derive only advantage from the limitations of the existing organizational patchwork. Experience has now given us a good basis for correcting those limitations, and it is time to do so.

I therefore propose creation of a single, comprehensive Federal agency within the Department of Justice to lead the war against illicit drug traffic.

Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1973, which I am transmitting to the Congress with this message, would establish such an agency, to be called the Drug Enforcement Administration. It would be headed by an Administrator reporting directly to the Attorney General.

The Drug Enforcement Administration would carry out the following antidrug functions, and would absorb the associated manpower and budgets:

--All functions of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (which would be abolished as a separate entity by the reorganization plan);

--Those functions of the Bureau of Customs pertaining to drug investigations and intelligence (to be transferred from the Treasury Department to the Attorney General by the reorganization plan);

--All functions of the Office for Drug Abuse Law Enforcement; and

--All functions of the Office of National Narcotics Intelligence.

Merger of the latter two organizations into the new agency would be effected by an executive order dissolving them and transferring their functions, to take effect upon approval of Reorganization Plan No. 2 by the Congress. Drug law enforcement research currently funded by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration and other agencies would also be transferred to the new agency by executive action.

The major responsibilities of the Drug Enforcement Administration would thus include:

--development of overall Federal drug law enforcement strategy, programs, planning, and evaluation;

--full investigation and preparation for prosecution of suspects for violations under all Federal drug trafficking laws;

--full investigation and preparation for prosecution of suspects connected with illicit drugs seized at U.S. ports-of-entry and international borders;

--conduct of all relations with drug law enforcement officials of foreign governments, under the policy guidance of the Cabinet Committee on International Narcotics Control;

--full coordination and cooperation with State and local law enforcement officials on joint drug enforcement efforts; and

--regulation of the legal manufacture of drugs and other controlled substances under Federal regulations.

The Attorney General working closely with the Administrator of this new agency, would have authority to make needed program adjustments. He would take steps within the Department of Justice to ensure that high priority emphasis is placed on the prosecution and sentencing of drug traffickers following their apprehension by the enforcement organization. He would also have the authority and responsibility for securing the fullest possible cooperation--particularly with respect to collection of drug intelligence-from all Federal departments and agencies which can contribute to the antidrug work, including the Internal Revenue Service and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

My proposals would make possible a more effective anti-drug role for the FBI, especially in dealing with the relationship between drug trafficking and organized crime. I intend to see that the resources of the FBI are fully committed to assist in supporting the new Drug Enforcement Administration.

The consolidation effected under Reorganization Plan No. e would reinforce the basic law enforcement and criminal justice mission of the Department of Justice. With worldwide drug law enforcement responsibilities no longer divided among several organizations in two different Cabinet departments, more complete and cumulative drug law enforcement intelligence could be compiled. Patterns of international and domestic illicit drug production, distribution and sale could be more directly compared and interpreted. Case-by-case drug law enforcement activities could be more comprehensively linked, cross-referenced, and coordinated into a single, organic enforcement operation. In short, drug law enforcement officers would be able to spend more time going after the traffickers and less time coordinating with one another.

Such progress could be especially helpful on the international front. Narcotics control action plans, developed under the leadership of the Cabinet Committee on International Narcotics Control, are now being carried out by U.S. officials in cooperation with host governments in 59 countries around the world. This wide-ranging effort to cut off drug supplies before they ever reach U.S. borders or streets is just now beginning to bear fruit. We can enhance its effectiveness, with little disruption of ongoing enforcement activities, by merging both the highly effective narcotics force of overseas Customs agents and the rapidly developing international activities of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs into the Drug Enforcement Administration. The new agency would work closely with the Cabinet Committee under the active leadership of the U.S. Ambassador in each country where anti-drug programs are underway.

Two years ago, when I established the Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention within the Executive Office of the President, we gained an organization with the necessary resources, breadth, and leadership capacity to begin dealing decisively with the "demand" side of the drug abuse problem--treatment and rehabilitation for those who have been drug victims, and preventive programs for potential drug abusers. This year, by permitting my reorganization proposals to take effect, the Congress can help provide a similar capability on the "supply" side. The proposed Drug Enforcement Administration, working as a team with the Special Action Office, would arm Americans with a potent one-two punch to help us fight back against the deadly menace of drug abuse. I ask full Congressional cooperation in its establishment.

IMPROVING PORT-OF-ENTRY INSPECTIONS

No heroin or cocaine is produced within the United States; domestic availability of these substances results solely from their illegal importation. The careful and complete inspection of all persons and goods coming into the United States is therefore an integral part of effective Federal drug law enforcement.

At the present time, however, Federal responsibility for conducting port-of-entry inspections is awkwardly divided among several Cabinet departments. The principal agencies involved are the Treasury Department's Bureau of Customs, which inspects goods, and the Justice Department's Immigration and Naturalization Service, which inspects persons and their papers. The two utilize separate inspection procedures, hold differing views of inspection priorities, and employ dissimilar personnel management practices.

To reduce the possibility that illicit drugs will escape detection at ports-of-entry because of divided responsibility, and to enhance the effectiveness of the Drug Enforcement Administration, the reorganization plan which I am proposing today would transfer to the Secretary of the Treasury all functions currently vested in Justice Department officials to inspect persons, or the documents of persons.

When the plan takes effect, it is my intention to direct the Secretary of the Treasury to use the resources so transferred-including some 1,000 employees of the Immigration and Naturalization Service---to augment the staff and budget of the Bureau of Customs. The Bureau's primary responsibilities would then include:

--inspection of all persons and goods entering the United States;

--valuation of goods being imported, and assessment of appropriate tariff duties;

--interception of contraband being smuggled into the United States;

--enforcement of U.S. laws governing the international movement of goods, except the investigation of contraband drugs and narcotics; and

--turning over the investigation responsibility for all drug law enforcement cases to the Department of Justice.

The reorganization would thus group most port-of-entry inspection functions in a single Cabinet department. It would reduce the need for much day-to-day interdepartmental coordination, allow more efficient staffing at some field locations, and remove the basis for damaging interagency rivalries. It would also give the Secretary of the Treasury the authority and flexibility to meet changing requirements in inspecting the international flow of people and goods. An important byproduct of the change would be more convenient service for travellers entering and leaving the country.

For these reasons, I am convinced that inspection activities at U.S. ports-of-entry can more effectively support our drug law enforcement efforts if concentrated in a single agency. The processing of persons at ports-of-entry is too closely interrelated with the inspection of goods to remain organizationally separated from it any longer. Both types of inspections have numerous objectives besides drug law enforcement, so it is logical to vest them in the Treasury Department, which has long had the principal responsibility for port-of-entry inspection of goods, including goods being transported in connection with persons. As long as the inspections are conducted with full awareness of related drug concerns it is neither necessary nor desirable that they be made a responsibility of the primary drug enforcement organization.

DECLARATIONS

After investigation, I have found that each action included in Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1973 is necessary to accomplish one or more of the purposes set forth in Section 901 (a) of Title 5 of the United States Code. In particular, the plan is responsive to the intention of the Congress as expressed in Section 901 (a) (I): "to promote better execution of the laws, more effective management of the executive branch and of its agencies and functions, and expeditious administration of the public business;" Section 901 (a) (3): "to increase the efficiency of the operations of the Government to the fullest extent practicable;" Section 901 (a) (5): "to reduce the number of agencies by consolidating those having similar functions under a single head, and to abolish such agencies or functions as may not be necessary for the efficient conduct of the Government;" and Section 901(a)(6): "to eliminate overlapping and duplication of effort."

As required by law, the plan has one logically consistent subject matter: consolidation of Federal drug law enforcement activities in a manner designed to increase their effectiveness.

The plan would establish in the Department of Justice a new Administration designated as the Drug Enforcement Administration. The reorganizations provided for in the plan make necessary the appointment and compensation of new officers as specified in Section 5 of the plan. The rates of compensation fixed for these officers would be comparable to those fixed for officers in the executive branch who have similar responsibilities.

While it is not practicable to specify all of the expenditure reductions and other economies which may result from the actions proposed, some savings may be anticipated in administrative costs now associated with the functions being transferred and consolidated.

The proposed reorganization is a necessary step in upgrading the effectiveness of our Nation's drug law enforcement effort. Both of the proposed changes would build on the strengths of established agencies, yielding maximum gains in the battle against drug abuse with minimum loss of time and momentum in the transition.

I am confident that this reorganization plan would significantly increase the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the Federal Government. I urge the Congress to allow it to become effective.

RICHARD NIXON
The White House,

March 28, 1973.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

The Drug Enforcement Administration was established on 1 July 1973, by Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1973, signed by President Richard Nixon on 28 March 1973

I get what you're saying. Not trying to pick up an alternative argument but departments and agencies operate under established law, not the whim of the director, czar etc. Nixon may have established the DEA but Congress established the laws that govern it.

Don't forget, "Congress" = three branches = House, Senate and Executive.

The FDA is led by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

The president appoints executives to multiple departments and agencies. Doesn't mean these executives operate under the will of their boss. It's not supposed to work that way. One of the reasons the previous admin stacked idealistic career fed workers is because the pres can't actually tell em what to do (if and when it goes against existing law.)

BTW:
DR.(that means doctor) paul is not so much right or left but more right vs. wrong.

With all due respect, you and I have many policy/leadership disagreements.

you get waaaaay to caught up in labels some time

Mr vs Dr?

Didn't want anybody to think I was talkin' bout the lady that makes fish sticks. You know, Mrs Paul.

Get it? Mr Paul... Mrs Paul


never mind

 

[dagnabit]

not "supposed" to work that way...

the federal government is not "supposed" to usurp the rights of the states in maters not delegated to it by the constitution either...

of course congress is not supposed yo make any law that counters The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

but we have the patriot act...


"supposed to"
is quaint but, not how our system works today thanks to libs like bush

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

below is the power of the executive to change drug policy in action!!!

IMO, it's an example of leadership. In other words, a president persuading Congress to approve laws to govern the DEA and meet international agreements.

"...Seeking ways to intensify our counteroffensive against this menace, I am asking the Congress today to join with this Administration in strengthening and streamlining the Federal drug law enforcement effort."

"The Drug Enforcement Administration would carry out the following antidrug functions, and would absorb the associated manpower and budgets..."

Sounds like a president lobbying Congress to approve his plan. No arch decrees going on here.

IMO, the same type of agency could have been birthed from congressional action, so long as the president went along for the ride. IMO, the DEA isn't so much a presidents power run amok but an agency and subsequent governing law ran through Congress like pretty much everything else. It just started at the executive level.

Long story short, Nixon introduced DEA as a bill and congress passed it, not unlike DHS.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

not "supposed" to work that way...

For example, Christine Whitman couldn't run a (by-law) autonomous EPA w/o being told what to do by her boss. She either resigned or was fired.

Remember the US attorneys that were fired in the last administration? Again, these appointments are supposed to make their own decisions as far as whom they prosecute.

the federal government is not "supposed" to usurp the rights of the states in maters not delegated to it by the constitution either...

Feds getting out of the way is no guarantee that states will meet our legalization expectations/desires. Sorry to admit but I'd like to be able to legally distill my own shine and brandy. Almost 80 years after repeal, I still can't.

of course congress is not supposed yo make any law that counters The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

but we have the patriot act...


"supposed to"
is quaint but, not how our system works today thanks to libs like bush

Yep, basically all Congress has to do is establish laws that describe probable cause. Don't forget we have the judiciary to tell us when law is unconstitutional.

Beyond that, I recognize that you and I have our disagreements on these subjects.