A Return To Law?

As I had commented before, the Obama administration in the person of US Attorney General, Eric Holder had willfully chosen to violate the “rule of law” by refusing to faithfully execute and enforce the laws of America.

Attorney General Eric Holder said at a press conference Wednesday, February 25, 2009, that he would no longer allow the Justice Department to raid medical marijuana clubs that are established legally under state law. His declaration is a fulfillment of a campaign promise by President Barack Obama.

No, what the President said during the campaign, you’ll be surprised to know, will be consistent with what we’ll be doing in law enforcement. He was my boss during the campaign. He is formally and technically and by law my boss now. What he said during the campaign is now American policy.

— Attorney General Eric Holder
DOJ News Conference

Well thankfully – and more than a little surprisingly – this violation of the Separation of Powers and flagrant disrespect for both the law and the Executive’s duty to faithfully enforce and defend it didn’t last very long.

On Friday, March 6, 2009 the ban on investigating and prosecuting medical marijuana clubs was – according to the LA Times – lifted. Federal agents may now resume filing new cases, issuing subpoenas or applying for search warrants in pending cases.

Both the ban enforcing federal drug laws and the lifting that ban were handled through interoffice memos, so we’re left in the dark about the exact details of either. The official word on both topics from the Attorney General’s office is “no comment.” In fact, members of that office were instructed not to discuss the content of the orders / memos with anyone outside the U.S. attorney’s office.

I predict that the the departure from the Rule of Law will be passed off as being failures on the part of people in the Attorney General’s office due to their misinterpretation of Holders public comments. Expect some “retirements” and reassignments among the US Attorneys Office as various people are “thrown under the bus.”

In any case, America has pulled back from a dangerous path and has – to some extent – returned to the law. That’s a very good thing, no matter the cost or reasons for it.

Tags: | | | |

2 Responses to “A Return To Law?”

  1. Phil Says:

    It amazes me that you’ve managed to write a post with so many words but so few points.

    Instead or arguing for or against medical pot OR for or against the federal government wasting time and resources on busting grandma for her glaucoma medicine OR for or against the federal government declaring a state law null and void; your post basically repeats the words “rule of law” over and over again.

    Yeah, way to add to the debate.

  2. jonolan Says:

    Phil, your comments would be more interesting if they had reached the point of monotony sue to they’re being nothing but senseless and non-topical complaint. Truly, your quite well-spoken; you just don’t seem to having anything worth saying.

    Now – in a probably vain attempt to explain it to you – I’m neither arguing for or against medical marijuana or for against the existence of federal laws that contravene those of the states. This post was a follow-up to an earlier one in which I complained about Obama and Holder choosing to only selectively enforce US law; which laws those were didn’t really matter.

    Now I understand your sort don’t favor the rule of law, preferring to pick and choose among things that further your agenda and ideology, but try to remember that you’re living within the US and Americans prefer a land of laws and that those laws be fairly and faithfully enforced – or changed, if they don’t work.

    BTW: For your much needed edification, since brought the matter up and showed your ignorance and bias, the federal prohibitions against marijuana pre-date the state laws in question allowing it for some purposes. So this would actually be a case of the states attempting to render a federal law null and void, a completely different matter.

Leave a Reply