A good question in a town hall forum that I, frankly, thought would be little more than an infomercial for The One and Democrats.
I’m not sure that the two situations are directly comparable. Controlling our international borders is an appropriate roll of the federal government. Whereas federal drug policy is undoubtedly extra-constitutional, based on a tortured interpretation of the commerce clause. I actually applaud California’s nullification of unconstitutional federal law.
Though in Obama’s belief system he feels that it is the federal government’s job to both enforce domestic drug policy and protect our international borders. So you have to ask, why is he asserting federal authority on one level and not on another?
Again, to be clear, I don’t want him to assert it in California. And in Arizona’s case we’re again talking about state law that does not conflict with federal law. But, as usual, Obama is more concerned with the pursuit of his political agenda than equal and fair application of the law.