Medical Marijuana

[TomAiello 25]

Did anyone else see this?

It's interesting to me that the three dissenting justices included two of the most conservative members of the court.

The Commerce Clause arguments are pretty reminiscent of some gun control debates, too.

Conservatives for medical marijuana, anyone?

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Zenister 0]

Tom, it must have slipped your mind that 'conservative' used to mean the government DID NOT get involved unless absolutely nessesary...

now they call us 'Libertarians' and it means you are completely unappointable and unelectible...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[TomAiello 25]

Well, yes. But did you read Scalia's opinion? He was trying soooo hard to stay "conservative" (i.e. concur in the decision) without actually saying that the commerce clause allowed the feds to regulate matters internal to the states.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Zenister 0]

the commerce law should not be invoked at all as it is not being sold across state lines, but by supporting states rights the SCOTUS would be undermining years of demonization efforts and an entire agency's budget (DEA)

that simply wont happen in today's political climate... the DEA has to do everything it can to pretend drug users are as much a threat as terrorists to maintain their obscene levels of funding and jurisdiction...

even though he has a life time appointment, the 'perks' still come from appeasing those in power...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[TomAiello 25]

The legal reasoning is that the Commerce Clause carries a "penumbra" like the First Amendment.

The 1st's penumbra is used to justify things like the right to an abortion. The CC's penumbra justifies the regulation of commerce interior to the states on the grounds that it effects the whole of commerce between the states.

I don't think I really agree on either one, but I guess that's the strict constructionist in me coming out. I'd rather see the abortion rights grounded firmly in equal protection, rather than on some hazy penumbra of unnamed attachments. And I'd rather that you actually had to carry something across state lines before the feds got to invoke the CC.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[lawrocket 3]

Yeah, Tom. There's another thread on it. I myself wrote that Scalia let us down. Thomas's dissent was pretty well written.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Thomas's dissent was pretty well written.

Quote

"One searches the Court's opinion in vain for any hint of what aspect of American life is reserved to the States." -- Thomas

Quote

"If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States." -- Thomas

Quote

"The Court's definition of economic activity for purposes of Commerce Clause jurisprudence threatens to sweep all of productive human activity into federal regulatory reach" -- O'Conner

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[lawrocket 3]

Yep. Here's another one Narci. Remember the discussions abotu how the federal government has not business regulating gay marriage? Well, gay marriage may implicate interstate commerce under this ruling.

Therefore, Congress may pass a law outlawing it, much like medical marijuana. This means that states that allow it could be usurped by the feds.

Are we all glad that the Feds can regulate whatever they want?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[narcimund 0]

Consider these upcoming cases:

Homemaker's backyard herb gardens, banned as a part of a congressionally-declared legitimate comprehensive federal program of stabilizing interstate food commerce.

National uniforms, mandated as a part of a federal program of regulating interstate garment and fashion commerce.

Prohibition of out-of-office political parties' websites as a part of a federal program of regulating interstate graphic design commerce.

Mandating registration, licensing, and seven years of record keeping of all sexual activities as a part of a federal program of regulating interstate lubricant, condom, and maternity clothing commerce.

Pretty silly, but the supreme court just declared all of these to be constitutionally protected functions of congress. All congress has to do is pass two laws simultaneously, one of which regulates commerce and the other of which they self-declare to be related to the first.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[narcimund 0]

I'll go even further. As of this case, all state law exists at the pleasure of congress.

The conservatives have had their dream come true. The states have been effectively dissolved during conservative control of federal power. The liberals are freaking out because the disenfranchisement of the states happened when they were out of power. They timed it so poorly.

Either way, since they were both working toward essentially the same thing, everyone wins! Right?

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Either way, since they were both working toward essentially the same thing, everyone wins! Right?

Now that's good cynicism.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[lawrocket 3]

I believe you are correct, narci. Some may think it off that Rehnquist and Thomas stood against this. I'm not surprised. I am surprised that Scalia did this, though.

Another thing this ends - there is now no further need to ever have another Constitutional Amendment.

My wife is hotter than your wife.