Spicer: States will likely see 'greater enforcement' of federal law against rec mj

Five myths about heroin
. Most heroin addiction starts with a legitimate pain prescription.

People who misuse prescription pain relievers are 40 times more likely to become addicted to heroin than those who don’t, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Research also shows that 75 percent of patients in heroin treatment started their opioid use with prescription medications, not heroin. That sounds like pain treatment is at the root of the problem, and the CDC is targeting doctors with new guidelines aimed at reining in prescriptions.

But overwhelmingly, prescription-drug misusers are not pain patients. According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, more than 75 percent of recreational opioid users in 2013-14 got pills from sources other than doctors, mainly friends and relatives. Even among this group, moving on to heroin is quite rare: Only 4 percent do so within five years; just 0.2 percent of U.S. adults are current heroin users.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...-card-d:homepage/story&utm_term=.b96eb52fc97d
(more)
 
K I L L said:
mostly true. There are some dems that are good on this issue and some repubs that are good on it as well. but most suck
Click to expand...

BS. It is very clear, that in regards to this issue, we are better off with a D in the White House. I am not saying they don't suck but the degree counts.
 
How are you going to be an authoritarian if you have nothing to enforce against the people....

How are you going to justify the police's job if you don't have drug crimes to enforce?
 
Bottom line of this whiney thread; elections have consequences and enforcing our laws is a priority with the new President.

:rofl2:
 
anatta said:
Do not misrepresent my views. I am a strong proponent of federalism,and federalism gave us
"the states are the laboratories of change" ,and that gave us legal weed.
Click to expand...


There was none. You emphasized the WH comments on states'rights in regard to the bathroom issue.

I believe you support Trump's attacks on so called "sanctuary cities?" If that is not accurate then excuse my error. If it is, then you are an absolute fraud and no supporter of federalism and/or any state/local control. Trump's attack on so called "sanctuary cities" has far less constitutional support than Obama's bathroom guidelines and it is clearly an attempt to nationalize the police interests of the federal government.
 
"Bottom line of this whiney thread" TD #65

You mean the one YOU are posting in?

"elections have consequences" D #65

You catch on fast. Thus the topic.

"enforcing our laws is a priority with the new President." TD #65

As it has been for all the U.S. presidents before him.

Was that ever the topic issue, the question?

A reminder to you Mr. BS avatar:
the posted topic is:

Spicer: States will likely see 'greater enforcement' of federal law against rec mj

So the issue is NOT as you present it:
"enforcing our laws is a priority with the new President." TD #65

Instead it's "'GREATER enforcement' of federal law against rec mj

That means spending $more on it.

So please inform us all "TD".
What crisis
what great social problem
what emergency
is such increased diversion of U.S. federal law enforcement $resources expected to resolve?

Whatever it is, I suspect the Colorado model does more to promote public safety and welfare than the federal War Against The People model, an obvious violation of Art.3 Sect.3 of the United States Constitution.
 
Dick from the Internet said:
There was none. You emphasized the WH comments on states'rights in regard to the bathroom issue.

I believe you support Trump's attacks on so called "sanctuary cities?" If that is not accurate then excuse my error. If it is, then you are an absolute fraud and no supporter of federalism and/or any state/local control. Trump's attack on so called "sanctuary cities" has far less constitutional support than Obama's bathroom guidelines and it is clearly an attempt to nationalize the police interests of the federal government.
Click to expand...
"guidelines" would be fine -but the threat was withholding of funding if they violated "guidelines"
or else nobody would care about non-pejorative guidelines


tell me why sanctuary cities are constitutional...and more so why they should not cooperate with ICE.
And then tell me if they do not why the federal government cannot withhold monies when many programs (grants) say that in order to participate they need to abide by federal law.

Federalism isn't "states rights", and it isn't "local control" or any of the terms you mishmash together.
It evolves over time. It's not absolute. it involves being able to understand where fed'purviews encroach up the states/locals

But it's always about keeping federal powers in check -because they tend to become expansive into state and
local powers.
Recall the individual mandate as "economic activity"was found un-Constitutional;only when Roberts called it a tax
did it become legal
 
Maher-on-Trump-on-Weed.jpg
 
anatta said:
"guidelines" would be fine -but the threat was withholding of funding if they violated "guidelines"
or else nobody would care about non-pejorative guidelines


tell me why sanctuary cities are constitutional...and more so why they should not cooperate with ICE.
And then tell me if they do not why the federal government cannot withhold monies when many programs (grants) say that in order to participate they need to abide by federal law.

Federalism isn't "states rights", and it isn't "local control" or any of the terms you mishmash together.
It evolves over time. It's not absolute. it involves being able to understand where fed'purviews encroach up the states/locals

But it's always about keeping federal powers in check -because they tend to become expansive into state and
local powers.
Recall the individual mandate as "economic activity"was found un-Constitutional;only when Roberts called it a tax
did it become legal
Click to expand...

That would be the Anti-Commandeering issue of the 10th.
Imigration is a federal purview,
The states cannot be forced to enforce federal law.
 
"tell me why sanctuary cities are constitutional.." a #69

a) Thanks for asking.

b) The short answer is Article Ten of our Bill of Rights.

c) Why should States or cities have to enforce federal law? You support unfunded federal mandates?

d) Municipalities have positive incentive to maintain social accord.
Thus instilling in residents of the jurisdiction fear of the police could degrade, not promote community.
 
Rune said:
That would be the Anti-Commandeering issue of the 10th.
Imigration is a federal purview,
The states cannot be forced to enforce federal law.
Click to expand...
yes. that does not apply to funding.
I'm not sure though is that is stare decisis..
 
sear said:
"tell me why sanctuary cities are constitutional.." a #69

a) Thanks for asking.

b) The short answer is Article Ten of our Bill of Rights.

c) Why should States or cities have to enforce federal law? You support unfunded federal mandates?

d) Municipalities have positive incentive to maintain social accord.
Thus instilling in residents of the jurisdiction fear of the police could degrade, not promote community.
Click to expand...
the 10th does not apply to immigration in that Congress has delegated those plenary powers to the executive.

There might be some grey zones on cooperating with ICE. I don't think so -but say there is.
That still allows the feds to withhold funding -there is no question about that.
 
anatta said:
"guidelines" would be fine -but the threat was withholding of funding if they violated "guidelines"
or else nobody would care about non-pejorative guidelines


tell me why sanctuary cities are constitutional...and more so why they should not cooperate with ICE.
And then tell me if they do not why the federal government cannot withhold monies when many programs (grants) say that in order to participate they need to abide by federal law.

Federalism isn't "states rights", and it isn't "local control" or any of the terms you mishmash together.
It evolves over time. It's not absolute. it involves being able to understand where fed'purviews encroach up the states/locals

But it's always about keeping federal powers in check -because they tend to become expansive into state and
local powers.
Recall the individual mandate as "economic activity"was found un-Constitutional;only when Roberts called it a tax
did it become legal
Click to expand...

Cutting funding is exactly what Trump is doing to the sanctuary cities for non compliance with his demands. He is clearly going to lose on this. He is not only violating federalist principles he is assuming powers he does not have, that even congress does not have.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...r-on-sanctuary-cities/?utm_term=.c2cba190071d

The order indicates that sanctuary cities “that fail to comply with applicable Federal law do not receive Federal funds, except as mandated by law.” More specifically, it mandates that “the Attorney General and the [Homeland Security] Secretary, in their discretion and to the extent consistent with law, shall ensure that jurisdictions that willfully refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373 (sanctuary jurisdictions) are not eligible to receive Federal grants, except as deemed necessary for law enforcement purposes by the Attorney General or the Secretary.”


Section 1373 mandates that “a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.”


There are two serious constitutional problems with conditioning federal grants to sanctuary cities on compliance with Section 1373. First, longstanding Supreme Court precedent mandates that the federal government may not impose conditions on grants to states and localities unless the conditions are “unambiguously” stated in the text of the law “so that the States can knowingly decide whether or not to accept those funds.” Few if any federal grants to sanctuary cities are explicitly conditioned on compliance with Section 1373. Any such condition must be passed by Congress, and may only apply to new grants, not ones that have already been appropriated. The executive cannot simply make up new conditions on its own and impose them on state and local governments. Doing so undermines both the separation of powers and federalism.


Even aside from Trump’s dubious effort to tie it to federal grants, Section 1373 is itself unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the federal government may not “commandeer” state and local officials by compelling them to enforce federal law. Such policies violate the Tenth Amendment.


Section 1373 attempts to circumvent this prohibition by forbidding higher-level state and local officials from mandating that lower-level ones refuse to help in enforcing federal policy. But the same principle that forbids direct commandeering also counts against Section 1373. As the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia explained in Printz v. United States, the purpose of the anti-commandeering doctrine is the “[p]reservation of the States as independent and autonomous political entities.” That independence and autonomy is massively undermined if the federal government can take away the states’ power to decide what state and local officials may do while on the job. As Scalia put it in the same opinion, federal law violates the Tenth Amendment if it “requires [state employees] to provide information that belongs to the State and is available to them only in their official capacity.” The same is true if, as in the case of Section 1373, the federal government tries to prevent states from controlling their employees’ use of information that “is available to them only in their official capacity.”
Click to expand...

Yes, federalism is about the division of power between federal, state and local governments. If you have some bizarre definition then state it but I don't need a civics or vocabulary lesson from an idiot like you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism

Federalism is the mixed or compound mode of government, combining a general government (the central or 'federal' government) with regional governments (provincial, state, cantonal, territorial or other sub-unit governments) in a single political system. Its distinctive feature, exemplified in the founding example of modern federalism of the United States of America under the Constitution of 1787, is a relationship of parity between the two levels of government established.[1] It can thus be defined as a form of government in which there is a division of powers between two levels of government of equal status.[2]
Click to expand...
 
Dick from the Internet said:
I believe you support Trump's attacks on so called "sanctuary cities?".
Click to expand...

They aren't "attacks"; they are statements that suggest that if you are part of State or City Government and flaunt and ignore our laws, there will be consequences.

I am amused by the notion that we need "sanctuary" for ILLEGAL aliens who are breaking our laws just by being here .... wait for it ...... it's coming.........ILLEGALLY.
 
sear said:
"Bottom line of this whiney thread" TD #65

You mean the one YOU are posting in?

"elections have consequences" D #65

You catch on fast. Thus the topic.

"enforcing our laws is a priority with the new President." TD #65

As it has been for all the U.S. presidents before him.

Was that ever the topic issue, the question?

A reminder to you Mr. BS avatar:
the posted topic is:

Spicer: States will likely see 'greater enforcement' of federal law against rec mj

So the issue is NOT as you present it:
"enforcing our laws is a priority with the new President." TD #65

Instead it's "'GREATER enforcement' of federal law against rec mj

That means spending $more on it.

So please inform us all "TD".
What crisis
what great social problem
what emergency
is such increased diversion of U.S. federal law enforcement $resources expected to resolve?

Whatever it is, I suspect the Colorado model does more to promote public safety and welfare than the federal War Against The People model, an obvious violation of Art.3 Sect.3 of the United States Constitution.
Click to expand...

Another boring tedious post that amounts to nothing more than......

bla-bla-emoticon.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top