Damn you for making me defend this Administration

I have a tremendous amount of respect for the Constitution and the intent of the Founders.  It is a complex, nuanced blueprint for governance that protects individual Liberty, though as has been said by better men than am I - it is suited only for a moral people.
 
I have absolute disgust for people who pervert the Founder's Intent to satisfy an agenda.  And I have no patience for people who refuse to take the time and invest the energy to understand the document, while invoking it on any topic as armor for their position.

I can't be bothered with the back story of the clemency silliness.  If you are up to speed, sorry - it's more Sparklie than anything else.  If you have been spared this story, good for you.  If you find yourself aligned with the Law & Order Republicans on the topic, it's time to examine the premise.

First: Putting people in prison for drugs is bullshit.

Second: Putting one guy in prison for 2 years for an ounce of powder coke, and another guy in prison for 20 years for an ounce of crack, is bullshit.

Third: FedGov, under the Constitution, has no legitimate authority to prosecute "Drug Laws" - that authority is claimed only under perversions of General Welfare, Necessary & Proper, and Interstate Commerce.

But the premise has nothing to do with drugs.

Law & Order Republicans are hammering the Administration's decision, even dropping the hyperbole bomb charging that the action is "threatening the entire Constitutional system".

OK - Constitution 101: Checks & Balances.  Three equal branches, each the final arbiter of all things Constitutional within their sphere.  So, Congress passes a draconian sentencing law.  The Judicial has no problems with it, so they convict cases brought before it by the Executive.  The Executive likes the law for a while, so they prosecute people in accordance with the law. (Of course all this is simply pissing up a rope, because "Final arbiter of all things Constitutional withing their respective spheres" is limited by the black-letter text and intent of the Founders - the delegated powers.)

Then things change within the Executive.  The new guys don't agree with the law, or perhaps they don't like the way the law is being applied.  Whatever.  Under our Constitution (the perverted version), it is the responsibility of the Executive to bring the case to court - so long as the Executive is in agreement.  But when they disagree they can simply refuse to prosecute.  Since it is the Executive that operates the prisons, they can open the doors when they wish when they suddenly change their minds about the "validity" or "fairness" of the laws in question.

Yes, we are trying to parse what is within the province of the Executive regarding hijacked power.  Don't get hung up on that absurdity.  If the Executive doesn't like a law, they can refuse to prosecute.  If the Judiciary doesn't like a law, they can refuse to convict (or even refuse to hear the case.)  If the Congress doesn't like a behavior of either other branch, they can pass another law, or rescind a law.

Just remember the premise - each branch of FedGov has the legitimate, genuine authority to tell the other branches to pound sand. 

We are at war.  The Founder's Intent is my North Star.  I do not have the time or patience to re-visit the academic.

I'm done with the topic.

Kerodin
III