We Need a National 'Time Out'

Even this administration's friends are beginning to experience combat fatigue over having to consider and defend so many various policy initiatives that are departures from the status quo.

How long before everyone either throws up their hands and yell, "We surrender!" or else we grab the pitchforks and torches?

Consider today's -- er, this afternoon's -- news via Drudge.

AG signals shift in marijuana policy

AG open to antitrust aid to newspapers

Coming Soon: Obama to address immigration reform

Super Pump: Feds to buy $1 trillion in U.S. Securities

Climate tax plan could cost $2 trillion

Obama officials consider legislative ploy to push tax, health care agendas through without debate

U.S. Army investigates who deployed military squad in Alabama shooting incident

Jimmy Carter visits the White House

This is at least a month's worth of controversy if not a couple.

Let's see if we can cover a couple of these.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Attorney General Eric Holder signaled a change on medical marijuana policy Wednesday, saying federal agents will target marijuana distributors only when they violate both federal and state law.

That would be a departure from the Bush administration, which targeted medical marijuana dispensaries in California even if they complied with that state's law.

"The policy is to go after those people who violate both federal and state law," Holder said in a question-and-answer session with reporters at the Justice Department.

On its face, this would mean that once a state changes its laws on medical marijuana, federal laws no longer apply? Is this new policy effective for all laws? What about the application of the interstate commerce clause? What about equal protection provisions of the Constitution?

Or is Holder really saying that he chooses not to enforce laws he agrees with?

About enforcing antitrust provisions of the law as they apply to newspapers:

WASHINGTON, March 18 (Reuters) - U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said on Wednesday preserving a healthy newspaper industry was important and he was open to adjusting antitrust policy if it could help.

"I'd like to think 20, 30, 40 years from now people will still be reading the newspaper," Holder told reporters.

He was responding to a call by House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi, urging the Justice Department to give newspapers more leeway to merge or combine operations. [SNIP]

"I think it's important for this nation to maintain a healthy newspaper industry. So to the extent that we have to look at our enforcement policies and conform them to the realities that that industry faces, that's something that I'm going to be willing to do," Holder said.

There are laws on the books that allow antitrust exemptions but it takes congressional action. If I'm reading this correctly, Holder and Pelosi are talking about wiring around the legislative process. This has Constitutional implications. How many other industries are going to expect the wink-and-a-nod treatment from the AG's office if Speaker Pelosi gives them a shout out?

Better grab a reinforcing layer of duct tape around your head for the next one.

President Barack Obama will present plans for immigration reform this year, Hispanic lawmakers said Wednesday after strategic talks at the White House.

Obama "was clear and eloquent and determinate to let us know that we are all together in the route of comprehensive immigration reform," Democratic lawmaker Luis Gutierrez told reporters after the discussion between the president and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC). [SNIP]

Obama will convene a public forum on the issue "probably in two months," according to New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez.

The White House said in a statement that the meeting was "robust and strategic" and that Obama will work with CHC members to address immigration reform "in both the short and long term."

I bet the meeting was "robust" and "strategic." How much political capital does Mr. Obama think he has available to spend? Obviously as much as he is spending borrowed dollars on budget busters.

At a time of dire economic straits, is this the moment to trigger another nationwide debate over immigration or is the plan this time to tuck immigration reform inside another porkulus package and avoid debate?

I address this to Americans who believe in constitutional governance: Do you not see a clear pattern evolving? Does it not indeed look as if Mr. Obama is deliberately trying to overwhelm our system of checks and balances, and end the centuries' old requirement for true legislative debate?

What we need right now is a national "time out." Time to absorb what's already taken place and think over what is going on. It's time to tell the president and his team to cool their jets for a bit.