• LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      27
      ·
      1 day ago

      Do what? Pardon people from state crimes, which he cannot do. Or write legislation making marijuana legal, which he can’t do?

      The reason charges for drugs are different in every state is because they are state laws, tried by those states.

      • Auli@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Except it is still federally illegal so the FBI DEA can arrest and charge you. So far presidents have basicslly ignored it. But doesn’t mean a future administration well.

        • capital@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          The CSA requires that such actions be made through formal rulemaking on the record after opportunity for a hearing.

          Y’all still haven’t learned that the US president isn’t god king, hu? He can’t just do shit by fiat.

          On another note, I want to call out this link where we can evidently watch the proceedings Dec 2, 0900-1700 (assuming that’s EST): www.DEA.gov/live

          Edit: I just read the letter (.pdf warning) and it basically contains 2 asks:

          1. Expand clemency for those with weed convictions.
          2. Issue an updated memo which would de-prioritize seizing weed and prosecuting individuals and businesses for state-legal weed activity.

          I don’t disagree. This just isn’t the silver bullet many here seem to think it is.

          • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            13
            ·
            1 day ago

            Y’all still haven’t learned that the US president isn’t god king, hu? He can’t just do shit by fiat.

            Unless it’s arming a genocide. Then his hands are magically and instantly untied.

              • PumpkinSkink@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                24 hours ago

                I think the point is more “As if by magic, all of the institutional barriers we hear about any time something good is on the docket suddenly are non-issues as soon as we’re doing something unthinkably evil”. If you want to make good counter arguments you need to work off of a “steelman” position of your opposition, otherwise it comes off as bad faith.

                • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  14 hours ago

                  He is the leader of the army. He can send the army to do as he wishes (for a set amount of time and then Congress can force him to withdraw and not provide funding as well. Which would likely result in an impeachment and removal if Congress didn’t support what he did) He is not the leader of legislation, so he cannot make legislation when he wishes.

                  • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    10 hours ago

                    I’m sure this will get downvoted but whatever it seems fun to ramble. The president is basically a glorified cop. He can tell all of his soldiers to do his bidding, but a cop cannot act outside of the law without getting enough people to cover for him. If he breaks the law the legislature (review board in that example) would vote to have him removed from his position.

                    A cop cannot make up laws. He can lie to someone and say something potentially unlawful is legal but all lawfulness would be reviewed and depicted by the judicial branch from laws that were already written and the situation “rectified” in some manner (whether a slap on the wrist or extreme). Usually in the presidents case, they throw out what he said, or they request Congress to discuss it, which could start the impeachment process.

                    He commands what may currently be the most powerful army in the world, be he can only play with his toys when mom and dad say it is okay, and he has to be in bed by 9:30 as it’s a school night.

                    That’s why it is so much of a danger when one party owns both parts of the Legislative branch, easily the most powerful branch (so long as the constitution holds). If dad says you can go to bed at 10, and mom says no, bedtime stays at 9:30. If the party owns both congress and the senate, them mom and dad can agree bed time is at 11, and you can eat cake all you want. If the courts say cake is illegal after 6:30, mom and dad agree to write a new rule that cake time goes to 11. As we want our spoiled child to be able to run rampant.

        • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          15 hours ago

          How?

          The HHS is a deciding factor with set rules created by Congress. To change it would be invalid and blocked by any judge before going into effect. Destroying the credibility of what was occuring and killing it in its tracks when it could otherwise finish. Trump doesn’t want to stop that, neither does Kennedy (Pretty sure he’s for it)