Osler's Razor

Your statements made every sense and it's too bad they didn't air all you had to say because Alberto Gonzales didn't quite deliver, in fact his option three, to cut off federal money to law enforcement didn't make any sense to me. Marijuana is the least insidious drug out there, so what does cutting federal money to law enforcement in the states where marijuana is legal do for other narco-traffic; cocaine, heroin, crack and all other nasty stuff that may go on out there. Well, at least that was the part that threw me off, perhaps Mr. Gonzalez meant something else. But it was a pretty good segment indeed.
 

I take issue with "prosecutorial discretion" at the "macro-level."

Should a minority of states that pass a law in contravention of federal law cause the Executive Branch to make a unilateral decision to ignore duly enacted federal laws because it is politically dangerous?

Prosecutorial discretion can be exercised for many legitimate reasons, but "politically dangerous" should not rise to the top. I know, of course, that the interview was edited, but the will of the people is not crushed in a dual sovereignty when federal law is enforced. Perhaps if a panda is steering the Death Star, but not under any other circumstance.

Regarding AG Gonzales, why did he even raise the preemption argument? It seemed extremely ill-suited in this context. It has been a while since I analytically deconstructed preemption, but it just didn't seem to fit.

Let me know when you are ready to write on one of these topics.