The President can order that federal marijuana laws not be enforced, so why not the same with DADT?

I am in full support of Obama ending medical marijuana raids, which he instructed his Justice Dept to do, despite the fact that there are still federal laws on the books.

The administration is basically announcing that the federal statutes will not be enforced.

Great.

But this highlights a bit of hypocrisy.

In responses here at DU, I didn't notice remarks along the lines of: "He can't do this, this is Congress' responsibility," "he can't change laws unilaterally, he isn't Bush" and "he wants the law changed permanently, so Congress should do it, not him."

Those are all the remarks, however, one sees here when the point is made that Obama could use his stop loss powers and instruct Gates and Co. to stop enforcing DADT and cease throwing good soldiers out of the armed services.

The President can and should do both: use his executive authority to immediately put a halt to DADT and ALSO work with and pressure Congress to repeal the statute permanently.

The fact that he is willing to use his power and authority to stop enforcing existing federal law regarding marijuana, but is resistant to doing so when it comes to DADT is an interesting double standard.

The change in policy is only applicable to cases where the state law is in conflict. That is when the grower. for example has a state legal permit to grow medical marijuana. The feds could still go after people who are growing marijuana on federal land and are in violation of state law.

ETA: I agree he ought to be able to suspend enforcement of Don't Ask Don't Tell just as easily.

The federal statute has not been repealed.

The analogous argument can be made that stop loss clearly overrides statute, if the President decides that it is in the best interests of the nation.

the feds can still go after people ANYWHERE (not just federal land) who are in violation of state law and in possession of or growing MJ.

their jurisdiction is not limited to federal land, on this crime. they have mj as a C-1 controlled substance.

I don't know why you think (or at least imply) that their jurisdiction is limited to federal land.

fwiw, i don't think they should even HAVE jurisdiction, but the scotus used the ever popular "commerce clause".

be a visceral revolt on the right. This issue is simply
too sensitive for the President to even presume to take
action.

Pot might cause a little grumbling but nothing serious.

He might offend some knuckle-dragging troglodyte who hates him and would never vote for him in a million years, and we can't have that!

Since the country wasn't ready for it, he shouldn't have done it. It was the wrong thing to do, given the political climate. Black people should have stayed oppressed until the country was ready to accept them.

Are you for real?

because he can't selectively enforce the law like that.

See post 19. It's called "prosecutorial discretion."

He made it a policy announcement that enforcement of Federal laws in states where State laws legalized the activity is a "waste of resources"

and can you seriously argue that kicking out soldiers we have spent tens of thousands dollars training is not a "waste of resources?"

and quaffs ale. Who understands anything anymore? All reason is made to seem unreasonable. Nobody knows what the fark is going on and why denial of human rights or single payer healthcare is popularly received by the majority, but somehow denied by the minority.

he is well within his right to end DADT.

For those who follow me around ..... this, too, is fit for a bumper sticker.

K&R

FROM: David W. Ogden, Deputy Attorney General
SUBJECT: Investigations and Prosecutions in States Authorizing the Medical Use of Marijuana

... The Department of Justice is committed to the enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act in all States. Congress has determined that marijuana is a dangerous drug, and the illegal distribution and sale of marijuana is a serious crime ...

The Department is .. committed to making efficient .. rational use of .. limited .. resources. In general, United States Attorneys are vested with “plenary authority with regard to federal criminal matters” within their districts ... In exercising this authority, United States Attorneys are “invested by statute and delegation from the Attorney General with the broadest discretion in the exercise of such authority” ...

The prosecution of significant traffickers of illegal drugs, including marijuana, and the disruption of illegal drug manufacturing and trafficking networks continues to be a core priority ... and the Department’s investigative and prosecutorial resources should be directed towards these objectives. As a general matter, pursuit of these priorities should not focus federal resources in your States on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana. For example, prosecution of individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses who use marijuana as part of a recommended treatment regimen consistent with applicable state law, or those caregivers in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state law who provide such individuals with marijuana, is unlikely to be an efficient use of limited federal resources. On the other hand, prosecution of commercial enterprises that unlawfully market and sell marijuana for profit continues to be an enforcement priority of the Department ...

Of course, no State can authorize violations of federal law ... Accordingly, in prosecutions under the Controlled Substances Act, federal prosecutors are not expected to charge, prove, or otherwise establish any state law violations ...

Your offices should continue to review marijuana cases for prosecution on a case-by-case basis ...

http://blogs.usdoj.gov/blog/archives/192

whether you would be satisfied if the Obama administration issued a similar memorandum for DADT, (say) indicating general support for the existing law but providing enforcement guidance to limit DADT separations

An order to the Dept of Defense could essentially state that he does not have the constitutional authority to unilaterally repeal DADT, but his administration is strongly supportive of Congressional repeal. Until that occurs, under his stop loss powers as CIC, given the need to keep military personnel from being stretched too thin in a time of two wars, he orders the DOD to suspend the enforcement of DADT, which he deems a monumental waste of resources.

Concurrently, he can vigorously work with Congress to permanently repeal the statute.

It is a decision not to prosecute by the Attorney General's office. Prosecutors, like the Attorney General, have a power called "prosecutorial discretion" -- one of the most unlimited powers any prosecutor has.

Prosecutorial discretion is the power to decide who to prosecute and who not to prosecute, whether to bring charges and what charges to bring, if any. It is what enables prosecutors all over the country to enter into plea bargaining (ie not charge the most serious applicable crime), and on a policy level to decide what crimes are important and what crimes to dedicate prosecutorial resources to combat -- for example, to devote resources to mortgage fraud, while taking them away from the so-called "war on drugs."

This decision was a prosecutor's decision (not the president's decision) to not prosecute a crime that may not be a state crime in the first place, and that moreover raises really difficult issues of state-federal relations. It is completely within the power of the AG to make that policy decision.

The president is not a prosecutor, has no discretion to disobey a law mandated by Congress, and is not prosecuting a crime in allowing the military to continue to follow DADT. We tried presidential abuse of power with Nixon, Reagan and the Bushes in other areas, and it didn't work out so well.

http://law.jrank.org/pages/1870/Prosecution-Prosecutorial-Discretion.html

The term "prosecutorial discretion" refers to the fact that under American law, government prosecuting attorneys have nearly absolute and unreviewable power to choose whether or not to bring criminal charges, and what charges to bring, in cases where the evidence would justify charges. This authority provides the essential underpinning to the prevailing practice of plea bargaining, and guarantees that American prosecutors are among the most powerful of public officials. It also provides a significant opportunity for leniency and mercy in a system that is frequently marked by broad and harsh criminal laws, and, increasingly in the last decades of the twentieth century, by legislative limitations on judges' sentencing discretion.