I hate it when I make a semi-sarcastic comment in a dark mood, only to see my sentiment confirmed, but here’s what I said:
Little wonder so many conservatives love the War on Drugs.
Which was in response to M. Simon’s comment:
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition. Thus we have two great types — the advanced person who rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires the ruins. He admires them especially by moonlight, not to say moonshine. Each new blunder of the progressive or prig becomes instantly a legend of immemorial antiquity for the snob. This is called the balance, or mutual check, in our Constitution. — G.K. Chesterton
===============
Note: Campaign contributions for the Rs will dry up if they actually SOLVE the problem (repeal socialism). They do best with empty promises.
I hate to think that they want to prolong the problems, but if what I saw today is any indication, perhaps they do.
In theory, Republicans are supposed to be federalists who believe in small government, according to the enumerated powers in the Constitution, which translates into the right of states to decide upon their own domestic laws.
Not according to some clown named House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte. In a story linked (with clear disapproval of Holder by Drudge) Goodlatte is furious that the feds aren’t cracking down on states that have liberalized marijuana laws:
On Tuesday, Republicans also grilled Holder on the Obama administration’s decision not to interfere with marijuana legalization efforts in Colorado and elsewhere, as long as states establish adequate regulations.
Goodlatte criticized the decision, saying it is tantamount to ignoring the law.
“The Justice Department’s decision not to enforce the Controlled Substances Act in states whose laws violate federal law is not a valid exercise of prosecutorial discretion, but a formal department-wide policy of selective non-enforcement of an Act of Congress,” Goodlatte said.
Holder countered that the DOJ was merely focusing on the most dangerous aspects of marijuana crime, such as trafficking or sales to minors.
“We don’t prosecute every violation of federal law,” he said. “We don’t have the capacity to do that and so what we try to do is make determinations about how we use our limited resources.”
Under Holder’s “Smart on Crime” initiative, the DOJ has altered the charging policies with regard to mandatory minimum sentences for certain nonviolent, low-level drug crimes.
Democrats on the panel lauded the move.
“In a country where nearly half of all federal inmates are serving time for drug offenses, the harshest [punishment] should be reserved for violent offenders,” said Rep. John Conyers (Mich.), the committee’s top Democrat.
But Goodlatte said judicial decisions meant to avoid triggering “mandatory minimum” sentences would put Holder at odds with the law.
What the hell is this son of a bitch trying to do? Make me like Eric Holder? I can’t stand the guy, but this is ridiculous.
Reading that around 60% of Republicans support enforcing marijuana laws while 60% of Democrats don’t is hardly comforting.
You’d almost think that not only do Republicans just plain want to lose, they want to fuck federalism in the ass.
I guess that explains why they want to run Jeb Bush against Hillary Clinton.
Comments
14 responses to “From bad to worse?”
Is there a libertarians anonymous, like some support group? If the progs aren’t busy hacking away at economic freedom, then the cons are likewise busy with personal freedom. I can only have so much outrage.
Any fool can see that people’s attitudes towards cannabis prohibition are changing rapidly. A smart politician would recognize this and ride that wave of drug reform to political success.
But Republicans aren’t just “any fool”. They are a special kind of fool. With the general public’s concerns about the surveillance state and civil liberties, the ACA, drug laws, jobs, the economy and deficits, the Republicans could win big if they ran on a platform that addresses all these issues. But because the socon base has to have their losing issues addressed, Republicans will shoot themselves in their collective feet once again over abortion rights and gay rights issues.
Republican socons will rally behind socon firebrand Ted Cruz, who has little crossover appeal IMO. And they will kick Rand Paul to the curb precisely because he isn’t a socon firebrand, even though he has much more crossover appeal to moderates as compared to Ted Cruz.
You’d almost think that not only do Republicans just plain want to lose, they want to fuck federalism in the ass.
Part of why I’m a conservative, not a Republican. “All hail the state!” is not a motto I will ever endorse.
From a rule-of-law perspective, I have to say the Congressman is right. The administration has taken it upon themselves to legislate by fiat–repealing this law, modifying that law, enforcing the DREAM Act as though it had been passed.
For now, they’re sticking to things that most people support, like marijuana legalization. Will you say the same thing when some future administration–or maybe even this one–takes a darker turn?
republicans are evil! I know this when I was young and didn’t know better I was a goldwater republican until I got my draft notice! The american people want to vote for a moderate republican with a SLIGHT! libertarian bent which rand paul is not! :but is close enough(people hope but they are wrong) and that is why he is the leading candidate to right now get republican nomination to the shock and hour of gop establishment and neo-conartists supporters of interventionism.
Neil, the problem is that much as I hate to admit it, Holder is right about the DoJ having huge discretion. Considering that the average American commits 3 felonies per day, if all laws were enforced to the letter, the entire population would be incarcerated. Now, I don’t imagine for a moment that Holder believes in federalism, but this is a classic federalist issue involving states passing their own marijuana laws. The Constitution nowhere grants the federal government jurisdiction over individual marijuana possession, and the Constitution is by its terms the law of the land. According to my view of rule of law, the states are within their rights.
While Holder does not go far enough in recognizing that, I think the Republican view of unchecked federal supremacy is (at least in this instance) more appalling than his.
Legalize drugs! The gene pool will be cleaned out in five years!
Veritas,
Cannabinoids are already legal if you manufacture them in your own body. But god help you if you are cannabinoid deficient and try to make up for that by ingesting a plant.
But I get you. Prohibition is so important to you that you would deny people a cancer cure.
=========
If the gene pool was going to be cleaned out by drugs it would already have happened. The country is flooded with the stuff. And the violence associated with a black market.
Prohibitions are all about class warfare. And classy guy(?) that you are I’m sure you will find a new social marker to indicate your vast superiority.
Maybe the ability to do partial differential equations?
“Legalize drugs! The gene pool will be cleaned out in five years!”
Drugs were in fact legal in the United States from 1776 -1914. Marijuana was criminalized in 1937.
Assuming that legal drugs clean out the gene pool, has the pool been improved since they were made illegal?
Please splain!
eric natural selection is a chain saw not a surgeons scalpel! How much dope do you smoke?
Pretty much all politicians of whatever flavor you choose, mostly make noises that they think will get sufficient voter approval to secure election. Just because a politicians says it doesn’t reveal his true beliefs, or that he has any beliefs at all. It’s a matter of which do you prefer, the phony red-haired whore or the phony blonde whore.
I, and I suspect you too, have sufficient contempt to cover both Holder and Goodlatte.
Eric, the reason everything is illegal is precisely to encourage the stand you’re taking, and give arbitrary power to the executive. The correct solution is to repeal the law. What you’re saying is that you prefer tyranny.
Neil I agree that the correct solution is to repeal the law. But unless and until that happens, I do not think advocating the non-enforcement of tyrannical laws indicates a preference for tyranny. And there are THOUSANDS of tyrannical laws.
OTOH, when tyrannical laws are not enforced (or only sporadically or randomly enforced), there is less public pressure applied to repeal them. In fact, one of the arguments made in FAVOR of keeping the sodomy laws was that they were rarely enforced!
[…] a rapidly escalating showdown between federal agents and cattle ranchers reminded me of a recent post which raised some philosophical […]