Crap like this really makes me want to leave the GOP at times.

After reading this piece of slime from the RNC website on Obama's position on marijuana. Where to begin?


1) The idea that taking a federalist position is somehow failing to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States" is absolutely asinine. The Constitution gives no explicit power to the federal government to regulate marijuana; nothing in Article I even remotely gives Congress this power. The Gonzales v. Raich decision is "based" on the interstate commerce clause, which is an utterly bullshit argument because the interstate commerce clause deals with INTERSTATE transactions, not INTRASTATE transactions as Gonzales v. Raich and the RNC cockamamie post seem to think. Which brings us to ...

2) I thought that the GOP was the Party AGAINST judicial activism? Apparently it's not the case if judicial activism seeks to impose a cultural dictate on everyone (which is interesting, because these same people oppose "judicial activism" on issues like abortion and gay marriage). This whole "take the GOP back to the principle of limited government" thing is going to be a lot harder than I thought.

3) Why in the world would the GOP use the interstate commerce clause as a justification for RESTRICTION? The conservative position has always been that the interstate commerce clause is around for the purpose of ensuring MORE freedom, not less. (As some states may pass laws restricting the flow of goods or people across states, in absence of the ICC. The interstate commerce clause serves more as an establishment of jurisdiction than a justification for restrictions.)

4) Is this seriously the best that the neocon power base of the GOP can do to co-opt Ron Paul's message? Do they really think they can do it by making an argument that is completely fallacious and contradictory to Ron Paul's principles?

5) What is this hostility to the idea of individual liberty, which entails that everybody has the liberty to choose what is best for themselves and their own bodies?

6) Why is the GOP citing a State Department document when discussing content of Article 2 of the Constitution? Why can't they just look to the damned thing itself and cite it directly? Perhaps because the leadership doesn't really read it on a regular basis (it does, after all, have seven articles and 27 amendments; who has time to read all of that shit?), which is probably why a post like this went out as an official representation of GOP principles.