The Office of National Drug Control Policy must, by law, oppose legalization of drugs. It is all well and good for an executive office to enforce the law, but it seems like it would be out of the purview of the executive branch to oppose legislative action. Are there any similar statutes?
Thanks,
Rob
Not necessarily by statute, but executive offices oppose (or endorse) legislative action all the time. The Surgeon General’s office agitates for easier access to healthcare/insurance (via legislative action); the Pentago agitates for increased defense spending, etc.
Looking at it the other way, does Congress have the power to force Executive Branch officials to take a certain viewpoint on a policy dispute?
I’m pretty sure if Congress legalizes drugs, the Drug Czar is going to be ‘forced’ to change their current policy.
Well, it would be illogical for Congress to legalize drugs without also altering the law that says the ONDCP must oppose legalization, so let’s assume they would also do that. But are you saying that if drugs were legalized, and the Drug Czar were no longer required to oppose this measure, he would therefore be prohibited from opposing it? He couldn’t issue press statements calling for re-criminalization?
I imagine if they legalized everything there would no longer be a Drug Czar anyway- just an extra set of offices at the FDA.
Well, Congress can force the issue, simply by voting to eliminate the ONDCP and the position of Drug Czar. So technically, they have that power.
However, even if they failed to get rid of the office when they legalized drugs, wouldn’t that essentially neuter the entire organization? If the Executive branch is charged with enforcing and upholding laws, can continuing enforcement really be justified for laws that no longer exist?
I can see adjusting the focus (away from prevention of use and possession and towards prevention of abuse and crime). But for a government official to use taxpayer money attempting to thwart the will of the people (whose representatives just voted for legalization)… well, let’s just say that seems wrong to me. But I don’t know enough to say anything more here in GQ.
Let’s put aside the question of what would happen if Congress legalized drugs. Where I see the constitutional question is in the law’s insistence that this executive officer take a particular position on a political debate, regardless of not only his own views but those of the President. Obviously it’s well within Congress’s purview to insist that an executive officer enforce the laws, but can they insist that he agree with them? Can they dictate his politics?
I mean, suppose Congress passed a law saying that the Secretary of the Treasury must oppose all tax cuts, or that the Secretary of Commerce must oppose all tax increases. Wouldn’t that be stepping a bit outside their proper powers?
I agree, but I think we are talking about politicians acting in an official capacity.
Your boss can’t keep you from being a Communist, say, but he can prohibit you from passing out copies of the Communist Manifesto at work. It isn’t that the Drug Czar, in his heart of hearts, must be vehemently against drug legalization; it’s just that he has to pretend to be so when making decisions at work. At least to me, that’s what seems to be the case here.
When I was in the Army there were certain restrictions on soldiers’ political speech in public. But it isn’t like I was required to be apolitical in everything I did, only while acting in an official capacity as a soldier in the US Army.
Aha, but the problem is that Congress (and whatever previous President signed the legislation we’re discussing) isn’t the ONDCP Director’s “boss”! He or she is an Executive Branch official. The ONDCP is “a Cabinet level component of the Executive Office of the President of the United States.” (Wikipedia). Doesn’t that imply that the political positions of this office should be controlled only by current Executive Branch officers?
The executive takes positions on matters of public policy all the time. A State of the Union Address is constitutionally mandated in fact. What the drug czar cannot do is go on enforcing a law that has been repealed, not matter what he thinks on the subject. And, of course, Congress could also abolish his position or refuse to authorize any funding for his salary.