Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[Machismo]

The rules don't make sense and are inconsistent. That's the point of anyone commenting on them.

Clearance rules are outdated and inconsistent. Also if the employees have already been cleared, which they have, then it should not be an issue.

In this case enforcement is due to the discretion of the office. Enforcing it is quite against the administration's messaging. They are being rather conservative for a liberal administration. And as brought up, suddenly staffers have to worry about being blackmailed for old incidents of smoking weed.

Great, then update them. I'm all for it.

many people are saying those that got fired were somehow betrayed, but that's not the case. There was no betrayal, and even though the White House lightened up a bit on marijuana use, it's not enough. But, the bottom line is that those people simply did not qualify. By all means, change the qualifications.

How would they suddenly have to worry? It's not like it has become more strict... it has become less strict.

- - - Updated - - -

I've read everything. Is there something you want to discuss?

Yes, let's discuss the White House completely shutting down your bullshit complaint.

[Themius]

Which is utterly irrelevant, because IT'S STILL FEDERALLY ILLEGAL regardless of whether states are choosing to enforce that or not.

State laws never trump federal laws. It's the other way around, every single time.

You forgot something:

with the federal government generally respecting that.

You also seem to have forgetten what "respective" means here....

For instance if something is class 2 federally but class 3 in a specific state, then within that state class 3 restrictions can be used within that state. The government "could" but generally doesn't, interfere and respects the laws passed in that state.

[Machismo]

You forgot something:



You already seemed to forget what "respective" means here....

For instance if something is class 2 federally but class 3 in a specific state, then within that state class 3 restrictions can be used within that state. The government "could" but generally doesn't, interfere and respects the laws passed in that state.

And?

This is a federal issue, and has nothing to do with states.

[Thelxi]

Yes, let's discuss the White House completely shutting down your bullshit complaint.

See, this is not an argument. This is just being argumentative. Rude too, I'll add

[Nurasu]

Ah but state laws often are what trump federal laws in their respective states, with the federal government generally respecting that. Do tell me what laws is being "upheld" by denying or moving people about due to "past" usage of something legal in their state?

It is not as cut and dry as Kim Davis because there are clear differences between directly violating the constitution versus a federal law.

Also trump interfering to get a crony a position is the same as Biden interfering to get policy change affect millions of ordinary workers??????????

You sound like those people are super concerned with being concerned

"Generally respecting" is not trumping. The feds could roll into WA tomorrow and arrest half the state if they wanted to.

There is NO difference between a constitutionally sound federal law and a constitutional law; the federal government derives its power directly from the Constitution. They are not allowed to pick and choose which to enforce in either case.

Finally, this has nothing or very little to do with their past usage; had they agreed to drug testing there would have been no repercussions.

[Machismo]

See, this is not an argument. This is just being argumentative. Rude too, I'll add

Why are you so upset?

Please state exactly why you are so upset that the White House loosened restrictions.

This narrative that you pushed:

The weed/WH story is really bothering me. Apparently quite a number of people were under the impression that it was a good idea to be honest with the administration about their weed smoking, and now 5 are fired and many more are pretty much demoted to remote work. This is not sitting well with me because if you keep up with behind the scenes politics you know that oh so many very high ranking former aides are quite open about smoking weed while working for say, Obama. I think it is so fucking lame that these people are being punished for being honest about smoking fucking weed.

Just shameful. I know it's a weird thing to get bothered over but I hope this catches the attention it deserves. It ain't right. Just gross.

It's been completely dismantled.

You pushed baseless narratives, and one that was obliterated by the WH itself.

[kaid]

This isn't about legalization, this is about the security clearance process.

They are not acting against the states, they are acting in regards to people on federal property, in the employ of the federal government. They are not denying the same to state employees.

As much as you want to make this into a huge deal, they are simply following the rules that already exist, and are trying to be consistent in the application of those rules. Now, I'm all for getting rid of those rules, but that has not happened, yet.

Until/unless weed is decriminalized at a federal level this stuff will continue it seems the biden admin is doing what they can but there are going to be cases where somebody just won't get their clearance and in which case they will need to be let go.

[Themius]

And?

This is a federal issue, and has nothing to do with states.

Should the government start arresting people who walked onto federal property who smoke marijuana in DC as it is illegal federally?

[PhaelixWW]

Aww, killjoy. I was saving this link because I wanted to watch them dig themselves deeper for a little while first.

Methinks you have a great appreciation for schadenfreude; it'd already been going on for multiple pages!

...but sorry.

[Themius]

"Generally respecting" is not trumping. The feds could roll into WA tomorrow and arrest half the state if they wanted to.

There is NO difference between a constitutionally sound federal law and a constitutional law; the federal government derives its power directly from the Constitution. They are not allowed to pick and choose which to enforce in either case.

Finally, this has nothing or very little to do with their past usage; had they agreed to drug testing there would have been no repercussions.

Is there like some basic ass comprehension problem?

Do you not understand the phrase.

"state laws often are what trump federal laws in their respective states

[Machismo]

Until/unless weed is decriminalized at a federal level this stuff will continue it seems the biden admin is doing what they can but there are going to be cases where somebody just won't get their clearance and in which case they will need to be let go.

It's true.

The first real step will have to be legalization. Sure, they can overlook past use, but that will still mean changing policies and investigations for literlaly hundreds of thousands of people.

[Themius]

Methinks you have a great appreciation for schadenfreude; it'd already been going on for multiple pages!

...but sorry.

There is a mystery threshold that the workers don't seem to be aware of... as the administration said it can be excused but... we aren't saying exactly what the threshold is... and it is kind of mystery so who truly knows "why" they're being let go?

Hell I mean there was quite the defence for the deputy press guy but I guess the five people are less important? Weed... versus threatening reporters and making derogatory comments.

It reminds me of the Betsy Devos position where the status of the individual is what's more important. I wonder how Harris's weed talk went...

[Nurasu]

Is there like some basic ass comprehension problem?

Do you not understand the phrase.

"state laws often are what trump federal laws in their respective states

You completely lack a fundamental understanding of basic US government, which it seems is the issue.

[PhaelixWW]

Ah but state laws often are what trump federal laws in their respective states

I think you just lost all credibility with me on this one.

[Machismo]

Should the government start arresting people who walked onto federal property who smoke marijuana in DC as it is illegal federally?

Look at that straw man... none of these people were arrested... they were simply denied a clearance.

- - - Updated - - -

Is there like some basic ass comprehension problem?

Do you not understand the phrase.

"state laws often are what trump federal laws in their respective states

Umm... no they do not.

The federal government can still go into California and arrest people for marijuana. It happens.

- - - Updated - - -

There is a mystery threshold that the workers don't seem to be aware of... as the administration said it can be excused but... we aren't saying exactly what the threshold is... and it is kind of mystery so who truly knows "why" they're being let go?

Evidence of this "mystery threshold" please.

[Thelxi]

Why are you so upset?

Please state exactly why you are so upset that the White House loosened restrictions.

This narrative that you pushed:



It's been completely dismantled.

You pushed baseless narratives, and one that was obliterated by the WH itself.

Dude I promise you I'm not upset and I'm genuinely open to discussion even with you, but lets leave the "obliterating" of "narratives" out of this thread for now. There's an interesting discussion going on that doesn't improve much with posts from me defending my emotional state to you.

[DarkTZeratul]

You forgot something:



You already seemed to forget what "respective" means here....

For instance if something is class 2 federally but class 3 in a specific state, then within that state class 3 restrictions can be used within that state. The government "could" but generally doesn't, interfere and respects the laws passed in that state.

So what you're saying here is that you really don't understand how federal and state laws interact, at all. It has nothing to do with the government "generally not interfering" with state law and everything to do with how supremacy works. The courts quite frequently overturn state and local laws that contradict federal laws.

The thing to keep in mind is that, in general, laws specify what you cannot do and what the punishment is for doing those things. In your example of something being a class 2 federal felony and a class 3 state felony, that's not a contradiction; that's the state imposing additional penalties of their own for the same thing federal law already prohibits. With marijuana, on the other hand, federal law says you can't do it, period, anywhere. States cannot pass laws saying you can, because that's in direct contradiction to the federal law saying you can't. That several states have is, technically, not legal. The executive branch has generally chosen to overlook this (the Obama administration explicitly so, the Trump administration despite saying otherwise), but that should in no way be taken to assume that the states have any right, whatsoever, to do it, or that the argument of "it was legal in that state" holds any water whatsoever. It especially should not be taken to mean that ignoring such violations of the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the US Constitution, since clearly you need a refresher) are in any way common or typical.

[Themius]

I think you just lost all credibility with me on this one.

Oh? So you mean that state laws don't trump federal laws within their states with the federal government generally taking the stance of not interfering with state laws that may go against federal laws?

let me explain what I mean by trumping since you seem confused.

"Actions that are illegal federally but legal on the state level can be done within the respective state. The general stance of the federal government has been to respect those state laws"

On the "state" level a state can say treat c2 as c3 and the federal government generally will respect that.

[Machismo]

I promise you I'm not upset and I'm genuinely open to discussion even with you, but lets leave the "obliterating" of "narratives" out of this thread for now. It's an interesting discussion that doesn't improve much with posts from me defending my emotional state to you.

You started with a whine, that was based off misinformation, lies, and exaggerations. You made claims, and refused to back them up. Now you want to whine that people who disagreed with you, are somehow the culprits.

So, your claims within, evidence please:

The weed/WH story is really bothering me. Apparently quite a number of people were under the impression that it was a good idea to be honest with the administration about their weed smoking, and now 5 are fired and many more are pretty much demoted to remote work. This is not sitting well with me because if you keep up with behind the scenes politics you know that oh so many very high ranking former aides are quite open about smoking weed while working for say, Obama. I think it is so fucking lame that these people are being punished for being honest about smoking fucking weed.

Just shameful. I know it's a weird thing to get bothered over but I hope this catches the attention it deserves. It ain't right. Just gross.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh? So you mean that state laws don't trump federal laws within their states with the federal government generally taking the stance of not interfering with state laws that may go against federal laws?

let me explain what I mean by trumping since you seem confused.

"Actions that are illegal federally but legal on the state level can be done within the respective state. The general stance of the federal government has been to respect those state laws"

On the "state" level a state can say treat c2 as c3 and the federal government generally will respect that.

No, they literally do not.

Just because the feds don't enforce laws within those states, does not mean state laws trump the federal laws.

Also, relating to the clearance issue, it has zero bearing on it, whatsoever.

[Themius]

So what you're saying here is that you really don't understand how federal and state laws interact, at all. It has nothing to do with the government "generally not interfering" with state law and everything to do with how supremacy works. The courts quite frequently overturn state and local laws that contradict federal laws. The thing to keep in mind is that, in general, laws specify what you cannot do and what the punishment is for doing those things. In your example of something being a class 2 federal felony and a class 3 state felony, that's not a contradiction; that's the state imposing additional penalties of their own for the same thing federal law already prohibits. With marijuana, on the other hand, federal law says you can't do it, period, anywhere. States cannot pass laws saying you can, because that's in direct contradiction to the federal law saying you can't. That several states have is, technically, not legal. The executive branch has generally chosen to overlook this (the Obama administration explicitly so, the Trump administration despite saying otherwise), but that should in no way be taken to assume that the states have any right, whatsoever, to do it, or that the argument of "it was legal in that state" holds any water whatsoever. It especially should not be taken to mean that ignoring such violations of the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the US Constitution, since clearly you need a refresher) are in any way common or typical.

Let's rephrase then since you lot seem lost.

"State laws can defacto trump federal ones in specific cases where the federal government decides that it will not interfere with state laws that have been passed in opposition to the federal law."

Note that I did not say dejure trump.