reply to post by autowrench
EDIT: This will be a long story to answer this, so everyone take your Ritalin now before you read it. But I see a good opportunity here to provide
some relevant background, case law and some Constitutional education.
I think you're missing the point here. The Constitution is broken into 3 separate and distinct parts for the government. There is the Legislative
branch.....they are the ones who make the laws.
There is the Executive branch. They are the ones in charge of enforcing the laws.
And there is the Judicial Branch...whose job it is to interpret both the actions of the other 2 branches to make sure they fall within the guidelines
of the Constitution itself.
Now..obviously that's an oversimplification of what actually occurs. But the enforcement branch of the US Government is the Executive branch. This
includes the President. The idea was to try a new form of government where one person or one body of individuals did not have all of the power.
Article II is the part that defines the President, and his roles. Section 3 of Article 2 is the one that gives the president the power to...among
other things, see that the laws created by Congress are faithfully executed.
He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall
judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them,
with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public
ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.
It is ludicrous to say that the President gets his own drug police force as you put it. And...no where does the constitution specifically create the
DEA. BUT...the DEA is part of the part of the Constitution which helps the President see that the laws are "faithfully executed."
I think we are agreeing that the DEA is overstepping it's bounds here, as well as possibly/probably many or most of the other alphabet agencies. I'm
not arguing with you over that. I think we agree on this point. But, the DEA is Constitutional. Just like the FBI is, the Transportation Safety
Bureau, the FAA and any other federal agency that is around. Well..at least the ones we know of. It's ridiculous to think the President himself, can
by himself, enforce the laws of the US. Nor was he meant to. He was meant to oversee they were enforced. And one way that has been accomplished, is
through the creation of the DEA.
It isn't as simple as the President saying...I think we need an agency just to deal with legal and illegal drugs, and to control the use, prescribing
of and manufacturing of the legal medicines. They also...obviously, handle the Federal investigations involving the illegal use, trafficking,
manufacturing, selling and basically existence of the illegal ones too.
I personally don't have a problem here with the DEA per se, but investigating a member of a state legislative body over state laws is way overstepping
their bounds, because their real intent isn't to uphold federal law. It was to intimidate Representative Sands in her speech and I'm sure in her
future voting habits.
Now...I'm gonna answer your next question before you ask it. Like I said...it's not like the President can just say...he wants a DEA, or and ATF or
whatever. These agencies have to be funded. And where does that money come from? It comes from Congress. So in theory,the "enforcement" of the laws is
carried out by the executive branch of the government. But it actual practice, since money is what is needed to run these agencies, basically, the
actual oversight of the enforcement of laws is by the same body who makes them...Congress. Since they supply the money to run the agencies who enforce
the laws they made. Hardly a separation of power in my opinion. But let's go just a tad further with this....
As I mentioned earlier in a post in this thread, Congress has used
Article 1, Section 8 Clause 3
the Constitution, which is also known as the Commerce Clause to do just about anything they want. And the courts have backed them....most of the
This clause specifically states Congress has the power to:
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Initially, the US Supreme Court mostly sided with the states over this, but since the latter parts of the 19th century and most all of the 20th
century and time since, the US Supreme Court has sided with the US Government.
edit on 4-2-2012 by webpirate because: formatting