Reflections From a Murky Pond

Recently, the US Attorney General, Jeff Session declared that he and his DoJ would reverse course on the doctrine set forth under Obama and Holder and restart enforcement of federal drug laws as they pertain to marijuana. This, frankly, leaves me feeling ambivalent since one could say that I’m getting conflicting smoke signals… and neither of them have anything directly to do with either medical or recreational use of cannabis.

To me this is an example of federal overreach resulting in the Constitution being in conflict with itself at this time. I find that the entirety of the federal drug laws, except those that cover importation, exportation, or interstate trafficking, to be violations of the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution. However, the Take Care Clause (Section 3, Clause 5) of Article II of the Constitution requires that the Executive shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. In other words, the Constitution requires the Executive branch to enforce the laws set forth by the Legislative branch unless and until the Judicial branch declares said laws to be null and void.

That conflict is what’s making me ambivalent about this whole thing, not my personal opinions of either medical or recreational use of marijuana.

Tags: 10th Amendment | America | Crime | DOJ | Drug Laws | Drugs | Federal Law | Federalism | Law | Marijuana | Politics | Separation of Powers | Sessions | States Rights | The Constitution | Weed

This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 10th, 2018 at 12:32 pm and is filed under Politics. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

So right now there’s a lot of discussion and spewing of hatred over the SCOTUS’ decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which now demands that all 50 States allow Queers to marry under the law. Most of the hate being spewed is, unsurprisingly, coming from the Liberals and Progressives and is both an orgy of gloating and implied threat of persecution – persecution now more likely after Obergefell.

In all truth, I’m rather ambivalent about this ruling from the SCOTUS. I’ve read the decision and it seems a solid and well-founded piece of law overall, but with one glaring problem – Judicial Tyranny over the States and the unintended negative consequences that bit of overreach may very well engender.

The Law Seems A Queer Things These Days

While I have exactly zero issues with the idea of queers being able to marry and have always been an opponent and detractor of DOMA I firmly believe that the SCOTUS’ hearing of this case and rendering such a broad opinion is contrary to best interests of the nation and flies directly in face of previous SCOTUS rulings – utterly ignored by Justice Kennedy and the four Liberals on the Court – that unequivocally stated in Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo that all laws pertaining to marriage are the purview of the several States and not the Federal Government.

Insofar as marriage is within temporal control, the States lay on the guiding hand.

“The whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States, and not to the laws of the United States.

Indeed, I’m displeased by Obergefell for exactly the same reason as I was against DOMA. Marriage law has historically been a province of state law in the United States and it should stay as such. While the Supremacy Clause does allow the SCOTUS to do what they’ve done – it’s perfectly valid under Constitutional Law – one should not do something merely because one can or one feels for some person or group of persons.

And yes, this is what Justice Kennedy did. He ignored history and the long-standing weight thereof, previous SCOTUS rulings, and the negative impacts of the legal precedent this sets so as to lend aid and comfort to a group he favors – homosexuals. Remember always that Justice Kennedy is the one who through judicial action effectively legalized sodomy in America with his opinion on Lawrence v. Texas.

So, to all the queers out there – I’m honestly happy for you but I shudder to think of the damage you’ve caused the nation by how you’ve gotten what you felt you deserved.

Tags: America | Constitution | Constitutional Law | DOMA | Homosexuals | Judicial Activism | Law | LGBT | Marriage | Obergefell v. Hodges | Politics | Queers | Society | States Rights | Tyranny

This entry was posted on Saturday, June 27th, 2015 at 12:04 pm and is filed under Politics, Society. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Obama, the boy who would be king, has always had a problem with authority that doesn’t stem from himself, his handlers and overseers, or his direct underlings in the Executive.

Nowhere is this more obvious than when he’s dealing with the several States and the governments demanding that he, to at least some extent, abide by the 10th Amendment.

Louisiana’s Governor, Bobby Jindal ran into this attitude recently.

“When we met with him as governors, I asked him, why don’t you give the states more influence on accrediting higher education, to bring more competition in the marketplace?” Jindal said.

“Here’s the insulting thing: In a room full of Democratic and Republican governors, basically, in so many words he said, ‘We can’t trust states. We can’t trust governors to protect their own people.'”

Of course, to be fair, this goes a bit beyond and outside of Obama’s authoritarian streak. It’s also a cultural disconnect. The question of giving the states more influence on accrediting higher education smacks of States’ Rights; Obama is – by his choice – a Black; and Blacks have been inculcated to believe that States’ Rights is just a code phrase for racism.

Really! Expecting Obama to behave differently or better would be culturally insensitive and would be ignoring the weight of over 150 years of Blacks being taught to be against the several states having any level of authority or autonomy. 😉

Tags: America | Blacks | Federalism | Jindal | Obama | Politics | States Rights | Subsidiarity | Tyranny

This entry was posted on Friday, May 30th, 2014 at 11:43 am and is filed under Politics. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Professor Jonathan Turley is an attorney, a legal scholar mostly specializing in Liberal interpretations of constitutional law, and a frequent commentator in many of the Leftist MSM’s papers and shows.  He also maintains an interesting blog, Res ipsa loquitur. Prof. Turley and I rarely agree on anything. That is why it is odd that he and I are in agreement on one of the more disturbing aspects of ObamaCare.

With this legislation, Congress has effectively defined an uninsured 18-year-old man in Richmond as an interstate problem like a polluting factory. It is an assertion of federal power that is inherently at odds with the original vision of the Framers. If a citizen who fails to get health insurance is an interstate problem, it is difficult to see the limiting principle as Congress seeks to impose other requirements on citizens. The ultimate question may not be how Congress can prevail, but how much of states’ rights would be left if it prevailed.

— Prof. Jonathon Turley
Is the Individual Mandate Constitutional?

Think about Prof. Turley’s statement, “If a citizen who fails to get health insurance is an interstate problem, it is difficult to see the limiting principle as Congress seeks to impose other requirements on citizens.” To any true American, one who would guard his liberty and that of his progeny, that is a chilling statement made all the more so because the reasoning mind can find little in the way of factual argument to refute it.

At this time (April 2, 2010) at least 14 States have filed federal lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the individual mandate portion of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid’s health insurance reconstruction legislation colloquially known as ObamaCare. So it is obvious that others besides myself agree with Turley’s estimation of the situation.

If the Gods are at all mercifully inclined towards America, these lawsuits will result in a key provision of ObamaCare, the individual health insurance mandate, being struck down on Constitutional grounds and the whole legislation having to go back to Congress in order to create a new – hopefully wiser and more American – rendition of the legislation.

So – oddly, Professor Turley and I are, for once, in agreement. It should be, but isn’t any longer, even odder that the one circumstance where two staunch proponents of differing views on so many issues can reach agreement is in opposition to President Obama and his agenda.

Tags: 10th Amendment | America | Congress | Federalism | Freedom | Healthcare | Law | Obama | Pelosi | Politics | Reid | States Rights | Subsidiarity | The Constitution | Turley | Tyranny

This entry was posted on Friday, April 2nd, 2010 at 12:59 pm and is filed under Politics. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

President Obama has to feel like a tired boxer hung up on the ropes with his opponent pummeling away at him. First he and his agenda took a hard blow from Republican Scott Brown’s surprising and substantial defeat of Democrat Martha Coakley for the late Ted Kennedy’s Massachusetts Senate seat.

Now the state legislatures across the nation are now pounding away at one of ObamaCare’s key provision, mandatory health insurance coverage for all Americans.

From Associated Press (AP) via Yahoo News:

Lawmakers in 34 states have filed or proposed amendments to their state constitutions or statutes rejecting health insurance mandates, according to the American Legislative Exchange Council, a nonprofit group that promotes limited government that is helping coordinate the efforts. Many of those proposals are targeted for the November ballot, assuring that health care remains a hot topic as hundreds of federal and state lawmakers face re-election.

If Scott Brown’s election could be described as a punishing body blow, then 34 out of 50 – 68% and enough, with 4 states to spare, to call a Constitutional Convention – state legislatures moving to block ObamaCare’s insurance mandate must be described as a States Rights hook and one that went straight across Obama’s chin.

Tags: Coakley | Healthcare | Insurance | Obama | Politics | Scott Brown | States Rights | Subsidiarity

This entry was posted on Monday, February 1st, 2010 at 1:51 pm and is filed under Politics. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.