Moderator Warning
Claverhouse, this is yet another official warning for political jabs in General Questions. Your posting privileges will be under review.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Why is that a jab ? Many people were led to believe Obama was going to legalize cannabis before his elections: it seems fair to assume other candidates such as Mrs. Clinton or Trump may try to ride the same tactic.
In any case this is a political question seeing that it deals with the powers of the president of the United States.
[ And I am not a Republican supporter. ]
Equating supporters of marijuana legalization as “druggies otherwise too stoned to reach the ballot-box” is a political jab.
Just because a question may be related to politics doesn’t justify any and all comments about it.
Any further comments about moderation should be taken to ATMB.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
I think people overestimate the power of the president of the United States. Yes he is powerful but we have to be realistic about this things. (Bloody nine quote) There are so many powerful people.
Yes and no. The opinion of the “tame lawyers” has no legal force, and is irrelevant to the legality of the order. What the advice given is supposed to do is give a feeling as to whether the order would survive review by the SCOTUS. In reality is seems it is also used to provide some level of plausible deniability, of the form “well it was the best advice I could get, so I went with it.” That is a political call, not a legal one.
Where the point about executive orders seems to break down is that although subject to judicial review, orders are very rarely so reviewed. It doesn’t matter what advice POTUS gets from however many tame lawyers, the legality of an executive order can be struck down on review. The fact that nobody saw fit to take an executive order to SCOTUS, or they declined to hear the case, does not mean that POTUS has made law. It means that nobody has disagreed with his interpretation of the law or constitution strongly enough to matter. This leaves the order in limbo.
Executive orders when it comes to national security are a problem in any country. Not just the US. History has shown that there has always been an uneasy tension and some level of flip-flopping of the amount of latitude afforded any executive. You vary from Nixon’s “whatever the president does is legal” - which is essentially delusional, to Iran-Contra - where there was no doubt of illegality - but it happened anyway. Executive orders on national security will always be something of a special case when it comes to legality, and not a good place to find examples of their general nature.
As Canada just found out, it isn’t simple. It seems there are several treaties that Canada is party to that forbid the production of cannabis.
Could an Executive Order redefine (that is, reinterpret) the word “marijuana”, “possess” or some other word that would effectively make recreational use legal? E.g. “As of today, the word ‘marijuana’ means more than 100 tons of marijuana plants and/or material, and the term ‘possess’ means to store plant material in designated supply depots on Pluto that are registered with the US Department of Agriculture for that purpose. The ‘US Department of Agriculture’ is defined as drunken frat boys who live on Saturn and pilot the Starship Enterprise.”
Well, could he unilaterally pardon all federal possession-of-marijuana crimes today? And again tomorrow? And so on, week in and week out, under his own power?
Is there a law that prohibits intelligence agencies from committing assassinations?
I thought the prohibition was, itself, merely an Executive Order.
Only if the existing laws contain no language that a) would specifically contradict this or b) contain no terms already defined by existing statue or case law. I would expect that marijuana, possess, and US Department of Agriculture already have legal definitions.
For real world language, the US archives maintains a handy page of all Executive Orders issued by President Obama. If you read some you’ll quickly see that they are carefully and narrowly designed by lawyers, not frat boys.
Yes, I’m sure he could. It wouldn’t take very long, though.
You got me wondering how many people that would be. The only good data I found was in a pdf, Who’s Really in Prison for Marijuana? and it’s older. However, the numbers are there. In 2001, there were 63 people in federal prison for marijuana possession (page 22).
What’s more interesting is that “possession” is defined in terms that even robert_columbia might appreciate. The median weight of possession was… 115 pounds. That’s right. They had enough marijuana to create a grown woman.
Unless things have changed radically in recent years, years of greater leniency, federal prisons apparently have a negligible number of inmates guilty of merely smoking a joint. That pdf is from the US Bureau of Prisons, so is hardly unbiased, but it makes the case that most federal sentences for possession are part of a package of other and more serious crimes. It’s possible there would be no one at all for Obama to pardon without getting into deeper waters.
I suspect the problem with that data is simply that it covers only federal prisons.
That is, the only people in federal prison for possession had to have been in possession of marijuana in circumstances where that possession was a Federal Crime, and where the Federal Government wouldn’t rather (or couldn’t) let a State handle the case.
I mean, even if possession of marijuana is against Federal Law, it is also against State law in most places. I’m sure the Federal Government would rather let the state handle prosecution and incarceration on that.
I seem to recall that there are very few people in Federal prisons for murder, too, for much the same reason: while there are Federal laws against murder, there are shockingly few places where that Federal law is the only applicable statute.
There’s no problem with the data. It’s the only applicable data. A President can only pardon those convicted of federal crimes. If states prosecute, the President can do nothing. So they are entirely irrelevant to this thread and to the question that The Other Waldo Pepper asked.
Couldn’t the President order the FDA to remove Marijuana from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act? What would the legal effects of that be?
Probably not. Most drugs are on the schedule because our treaty obligations require them to be there (and thus the Controlled Substances Act circumscribes executive authority in that area), as Ike Witt points out. I am fairly confident that marijuana is one such substance.
The prez could direct (federal) prosecutors to not charge people caught with marijuana. “Our resources are better spent elsewhere” The prosecution has a lot of discretion about whether to charge, seek indictment, what to tell a grand jury, and whether to proceed with prosecution. OTOH, s pointed out, typically this level of crime is not federal.
The definitions are already specific - i.e. lab tests indicating level of THC etc.
The issue with a lot of law is that society and social mores have changed in a way that the founding fathers never anticipated. The same old white guys who thought it should be legal for hardy (white) yeomen farmers on the frontier to be guaranteed the right to guns would probably be horrified to find that law should apply to all those descendants of slaves in crowded cities (What? They can vote??? And they count as 1 citizen not 3/5ths? Ye Gods!); or to find the kind of filth that can be published today under the guise of freedom of the press. (Not that these are my POV, but what would the founding fathers think of Hustler?)
Heck, the first amendment was an afterthought to the constitution, as was the second. The bill of rights was not passed until two years after the constitution, and not ratified until two more years. It only came about because some groups in the 13 colonies thought the constitution, as written by the founding fathers, inadequate and tried to block ratification. Even so, 7 years later congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts which directly contradicted these rights. So… the founding fathers were not necessarily as unanimously enlightened as we think. They were just a bit further enlightened than the monarchial systems of Europe.