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

[240 is Back]

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 . . . .

[Dos Equis]

lol  That's cute.   

[temple_of_dis]

sounds like a state issue to me


are you soviets saying its ok for obama to step on states like AZ?

[240 is Back]

sounds like a state issue to me


are you soviets saying its ok for obama to step on states like AZ?

here's the thing - AZ created a law, that while I found it to violate rights, most repubs supported, and they got very mad when Obama tried sticking his nose into it.  They yelled for states rights.

Now that the potheads in Colorado have decided to toke away legally, and they voted for it - suddenly some *repubs* want the federal govt/obama to stick his nose in their business.

So it sounds like they only support states rights when they happen to agree with that state

[whork]

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/

And he is supposed to be a libertarian

[24KT]

Call me a hypocrite if you will, but I believe the federal government has every right to step in, when the individual states, and the people therein vote for or enact legislation that curtails or negatively impacts upon the freedom and/or civil rights on another. ie: racial, gender, sexual orientation etc.,

When a state enacts legislation that permits legal adults to freely pursue happiness without negatively impacting another, ...the Feds have no business sticking their noses in.

I congratulate the people of Colorado for getting their pot! 

[macos]

The politicos smoke the best hashish from mandala India.
Them they make gimmick statements

[24KT]

Canadians from coast to coast to coast are drowning their sorrows in champagne over the devastating news that embarassing Republican train wreck, Ted Cruz, is renouncing his Canadian citizenship.

[Necrosis]

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. 

Seriously, you think they don't pick and choose? must be nice in your world of unlimited cops and resources. The point he is making is the law is stupid locking up people for MJ is unethical, unmoral and stupid on every level, not one rational argument can be made against it when in the context of our society.

wouldn't you prefer he not waste resources going after people smoking mj?

[Dos Equis]

Seriously, you think they don't pick and choose? must be nice in your world of unlimited cops and resources. The point he is making is the law is stupid locking up people for MJ is unethical, unmoral and stupid on every level, not one rational argument can be made against it when in the context of our society.

wouldn't you prefer he not waste resources going after people smoking mj?

Yes, Obama has been picking and choosing which laws to enforce, including DOMA, immigration laws, etc.  Is that consistent with the Constitution?  No. 

If the executive believes a law is "stupid," etc., he should work to change it.  Failing that, he has the Constitutional duty to enforce it. 

[240 is Back]

If Cruz becomes president... he'll use federal power to shut down Colorado state laws on pot...

But won't use federal power to shut down the Arizona law?

I don't like the idea of presidents just picking and choosing what state laws to leave alone, and which to shit on.  It's not right when obama does it, and it won't be right if Cruz does it.

[Dos Equis]

If Cruz becomes president... he'll use federal power to shut down Colorado state laws on pot...

But won't use federal power to shut down the Arizona law?

I don't like the idea of presidents just picking and choosing what state laws to leave alone, and which to shit on.  It's not right when obama does it, and it won't be right if Cruz does it.

You've turned on Cruz already?  I am shocked.  Shocked I tell you. . . .

[Necrosis]

Yes, Obama has been picking and choosing which laws to enforce, including DOMA, immigration laws, etc.  Is that consistent with the Constitution?  No. 

If the executive believes a law is "stupid," etc., he should work to change it.  Failing that, he has the Constitutional duty to enforce it. 

That is one way to effect change, however I think that would take longer and allow more immoral things to occur. It is a downright shame people are in jail for life for MJ. The real world doesn't work in a binary fashion I am afraid.

[tonymctones]

You've turned on Cruz already?  I am shocked.  Shocked I tell you. . . .

he kept it together longer than I thought he would but we all knew he was just trying to gain some credibility before going full libtard again.

[Dos Equis]

That is one way to effect change, however I think that would take longer and allow more immoral things to occur. It is a downright shame people are in jail for life for MJ. The real world doesn't work in a binary fashion I am afraid.

I haven't heard about people being in jail for life for smoking marijuana.  Where did you hear or read that?

I don't support anarchy.  All three branches need to operate within the system.  Sometimes we don't like the results, but each branch needs to do its job.  We should not allow the president, regardless of party, to stop enforcing laws he doesn't like. 

[Dos Equis]

he kept it together longer than I thought he would but we all knew he was just trying to gain some credibility before going full libtard again.

A very distinct pattern. 

[240 is Back]

You've turned on Cruz already?  I am shocked.  Shocked I tell you. . . .

WTF are you talking about?  No candidate is perfect.  I will suport cruz if he's the nominee and unless he's up against Rand, I will support him in the Repub primaries.

You see BB, it's fine to admit flaws in the positions of the candidates you support. 

To me, it's complete lapdog, kneepadder to support 100% of what ANY candidate says.  They all make mistakes.  They all have some shitty positions.  I like Cruz and 100% support his candidacy... however, I'd rather see him as veep with Rand (for electability purposes).

I pity any person that feels they need to cheerlead 100% of what any politicians says.  I'd much rather trust the word of a person who says "I don't like every position of Candidate A, but I feel he will be best for the USA" than a person who tells me "Candidate B is 100% right about everything and has never done anything wrong and every position he has is totally awesome!"

I much more trust a person willing to admit their person isn't perfect, but is the best choice.  Yall should try that approach - it makes your endorsement much more authentic. 

[tonymctones]

WTF are you talking about?  No candidate is perfect.  I will suport cruz if he's the nominee and unless he's up against Rand, I will support him in the Repub primaries.

You see BB, it's fine to admit flaws in the positions of the candidates you support. 

To me, it's complete lapdog, kneepadder to support 100% of what ANY candidate says.  They all make mistakes.  They all have some shitty positions.  I like Cruz and 100% support his candidacy... however, I'd rather see him as veep with Rand (for electability purposes).

I pity any person that feels they need to cheerlead 100% of what any politicians says.  I'd much rather trust the word of a person who says "I don't like every position of Candidate A, but I feel he will be best for the USA" than a person who tells me "Candidate B is 100% right about everything and has never done anything wrong and every position he has is totally awesome!"

I much more trust a person willing to admit their person isn't perfect, but is the best choice.  Yall should try that approach - it makes your endorsement much more authentic. 

you will shit on him 99 posts out a 100 and on the 100th one you will still shit on him but start it with "look I support Cruz and will vote for him but..."

[Dos Equis]

you will shit on him 99 posts out a 100 and on the 100th one you will still shit on him but start it with "look I support Cruz and will vote for him but..."

^^^^ This.

[240 is Back]

you will shit on him 99 posts out a 100 and on the 100th one you will still shit on him but start it with "look I support Cruz and will vote for him but..."

I just read thru his positions... Wow, I think I agree with about 95% of what he says. 

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Ted_Cruz.htm