Senator Ted Cruz attacks Obama for not locking up marijuana users in Colorado

[240 is Back]

Right on, ted.   Libertarians might not like this, but it's the Federal law.  I agree, the states should always step aside for federal mandate.



By Eric W. Dolan
Friday, January 10, 2014 15:20 EST

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.’”

Watch video below.

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

[Vince G, CSN MFT]

Right on, ted.   Libertarians might not like this, but it's the Federal law.  I agree, the states should always step aside for federal mandate.



By Eric W. Dolan
Friday, January 10, 2014 15:20 EST

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.’”

Watch video below.

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

Guess they like "State's Rights" when its convenient....

[Archer77]

What a pointless cruzsade(pun intended).  Cruz is coming off as doofus more and more everyday. 

[scottt]

Him attacking Obama might get the federal law changed.

[240 is Back]

Guess they like "State's Rights" when its convenient....

Yeah, that's the first thing that came to my mind.

Even if one disagrees with the actions of a state, they should be happy that it's the voice of the people of THAT STATE which matters.

Until it's an issue repubs disagree with - then suddenly we need federal mandates to squash the word of the majority of the people in that state.  Libertarians get kicked right in the pants

[Straw Man]

If Cruz was sincere about shit like this then why has he never mentioned anything about prostitution in Nevada

[24KT]

.

[temple_of_dis]

dont be hating on the next prezidenteee!!

[LurkerNoMore]

What a pointless cruzsade(pun intended).  Cruz is coming off as doofus more and more everyday. 

Not possible. 

[Mawse]

nice spin, but it sounds more like he is saying we should be adult about this and have a discussion on why the laws haven't been changed on a federal level , something neither side wants to do because they are beholden to their vote base of old people, idiots, prison unions etc

As repulsive as it sounds, Obama should be locking them up, he should sic his Bush-ite DEA head on those dispensaries and Holder should crush those states. Otherwise he is picking and choosing which federal laws to enforce, and as Arizona proved the Federal laws must always come first.

[Dos Equis]

nice spin, but it sounds more like he is saying we should be adult about this and have a discussion on why the laws haven't been changed on a federal level , something neither side wants to do because they are beholden to their vote base of old people, idiots, prison unions etc

As repulsive as it sounds, Obama should be locking them up, he should sic his Bush-ite DEA head on those dispensaries and Holder should crush those states. Otherwise he is picking and choosing which federal laws to enforce, and as Arizona proved the Federal laws must always come first.

Correct.  The executive branch has the obligation to enforce the law.  They cannot pick and choose which laws to enforce.  Unless we're talking about Obama. 

[24KT]

Correct.  The executive branch has the obligation to enforce the law.  They cannot pick and choose which laws to enforce.  Unless we're talking about Obama. 

  ...that's rich coming from the moderator who attacks posters, permits trolling, libelous, defamation & character assassination of selected posters, and picks & chooses when to enforce the rules of the forum.

[240 is Back]

Correct.  The executive branch has the obligation to enforce the law.  They cannot pick and choose which laws to enforce.  Unless we're talking about Obama. 

imagine Obama enacting an executive order, legalizing gay marriage and late-term abortion, about 2 minutes after the 2012 mid-term elections.  Two years of that being FEDERAL law, and repubs unable to stop it. 

I bet Cruz would suddenly be all about states' rights then, saying we should all let the states decide things, and the fed govt has no business telling us how to live.  He cannot have it both ways.  The people of colorado want pot, and while I don't liek the law and fear it'll give us stoned drivers on the road, I think Colorado voted for it, so they get it. 

[Dos Equis]

...that's rich coming from the moderator who attacks posters, permits trolling, libelous, defamation & character assassination of selected posters, and picks & chooses when to enforce the rules of the forum.

Are the posters on this board interfering with your attempt to lure suckers into your latest snake oil campaign?  I'm so sorry.   

[Dos Equis]

imagine Obama enacting an executive order, legalizing gay marriage and late-term abortion, about 2 minutes after the 2012 mid-term elections.  Two years of that being FEDERAL law, and repubs unable to stop it. 

I bet Cruz would suddenly be all about states' rights then, saying we should all let the states decide things, and the fed govt has no business telling us how to live.  He cannot have it both ways.  The people of colorado want pot, and while I don't liek the law and fear it'll give us stoned drivers on the road, I think Colorado voted for it, so they get it. 

That's stupid.

[240 is Back]

That's stupid.

you either support states' rights, or you support the federal govt being able to override the states on social issues.

One or the other.  Can't pick and choose.  Sorry, Mr. Cruz.  If the citizens of the state want it, you and Obama shouldn't be able to take it from them.  Even if I disagree with stoners getting baked and making streets dangerous... I have to respect the rights of the citizens of the states of Colorado.

So does Cruz.

[Dos Equis]

you either support states' rights, or you support the federal govt being able to override the states on social issues.

One or the other.  Can't pick and choose.  Sorry, Mr. Cruz.  If the citizens of the state want it, you and Obama shouldn't be able to take it from them.  Even if I disagree with stoners getting baked and making streets dangerous... I have to respect the rights of the citizens of the states of Colorado.

So does Cruz.

 

[240 is Back]

It sucks, because it means super-liberal states can get away with shit we disagree with. 

But if you're a true constitutionalist, if you truly support states rights, dont tread on me, etc - Then YES, you want the govt to stay the heck out of what the states decide.

This is where people in the repub party suddenly become "sorta-libs".   They're okay with an invasive federal govt as long as they agree with the goals of the federal govt on certain issues. 

[Dos Equis]

It sucks, because it means super-liberal states can get away with shit we disagree with. 

But if you're a true constitutionalist, if you truly support states rights, dont tread on me, etc - Then YES, you want the govt to stay the heck out of what the states decide.

This is where people in the repub party suddenly become "sorta-libs".   They're okay with an invasive federal govt as long as they agree with the goals of the federal govt on certain issues. 

Maybe part of Obama's executive orders will be one legalizing third trimester abortions.  I think it will happen next week.  Book it. 

[240 is Back]

Maybe part of Obama's executive orders will be one legalizing third trimester abortions.  I think it will happen next week.  Book it. 

I was creating an example of some horrible far-left extreme legislation that obama could deliver - and if Cruz is true to his "States should obey the federal govt", then he'd be a hypocrite not to support it.

Obviously I don't think that will happen.  But the point is that people like Cruz - endorsing federal overrides on what the people of the state clearly want - well, that's a load of liberal crap.  Cruz is a TX governor telling us that the liberal obama admin should be able to override what the good ppl of Colorado decided.  There's so much wrong with that.

This isn't an attack on Cruz... this is an attack on his statement that the fed govt should be able to just shit on states rights whenever convenient.

[24KT]

I was creating an example of some horrible far-left extreme legislation that obama could deliver - and if Cruz is true to his "States should obey the federal govt", then he'd be a hypocrite not to support it.

Obviously I don't think that will happen.  But the point is that people like Cruz - endorsing federal overrides on what the people of the state clearly want - well, that's a load of liberal crap.  Cruz is a TX governor telling us that the liberal obama admin should be able to override what the good ppl of Colorado decided.  There's so much wrong with that.

This isn't an attack on Cruz... this is an attack on his statement that the fed govt should be able to just shit on states rights whenever convenient.

That's the problem with most who discuss politics. They view an attack on statements & policies, as an attack on the person. They also likewise choose to attack people, rather than their statements. So sad there aren't more clear minded, well reasoning and level headed individuals like you in political discussions. 

[24KT]

ps: Although a dickhead like Cruz SHOULD be attacked, ...and with frequency. 

[Dos Equis]

I was creating an example of some horrible far-left extreme legislation that obama could deliver - and if Cruz is true to his "States should obey the federal govt", then he'd be a hypocrite not to support it.

Obviously I don't think that will happen.  But the point is that people like Cruz - endorsing federal overrides on what the people of the state clearly want - well, that's a load of liberal crap.  Cruz is a TX governor telling us that the liberal obama admin should be able to override what the good ppl of Colorado decided.  There's so much wrong with that.

This isn't an attack on Cruz... this is an attack on his statement that the fed govt should be able to just shit on states rights whenever convenient.

No, you were making an absolutely ridiculous hypothetical, which has nothing to do with whether the executive branch has the Constitutional obligation to enforce the law. 

[240 is Back]

No, you were making an absolutely ridiculous hypothetical, which has nothing to do with whether the executive branch has the Constitutional obligation to enforce the law. 

I would like to hear other conservatives chime in here.

Do you agree with Cruz, that Obama's White House should "pull rank" and enforce federal laws, despite the wishes of people who actually live in that state? 

[Dos Equis]

I would like to hear other conservatives chime in here.

Do you agree with Cruz, that Obama's White House should "pull rank" and enforce federal laws, despite the wishes of people who actually live in that state? 

Yes, "other conservatives," does the president have the option to disregard the law, despite the mandate in Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution that "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"? 

Inquiring minds want to know . . . .