|
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
If marijuana is a federally controlled substance similar to uranium, radioactive material, tobacco, alcohol, cocaine, heroine, legal drugs, etc. I don't see how the federal government would not have a right to raid their homes/etc.
Ideally it shouldn't be a federally controlled substance but it is, and so the government has the right/ability to do these things.
Although I am a big proponent of state's rights, if the courts were to rule for the State in this matter, then legally there would be nothing to hold back the use of other hard drugs and controlled substances |
The constitution does not directly cede Congress with powers to ban substances such as uranium, radioactive material, tobacco, alcohol, drugs, etc. That jurisdiction is principally left to the states. The only way congress has a say so in the matter is if those substances are related to commerce in any way whatsoever. What is retarded about this ruling is that the marijuana is home grown, it is not sold or traded, and it does not cross state lines. Whats even more retarded about the ruling is that it seems to go against the very logic that the Supreme Court used to strike down the Gun-Free School Zones Act, when it stated that the federal government overstepped its jurisdiction with the commerce clause then.
And if citizens want to use hard drugs and controlled substances that should be the decision of the state, so long as they do not engage in commerce.
Edit: but it is refreshing to see the conservatives here side with the liberal justices. Most of the conservative justices disagreed. Rehnquist, O'Connor, and Clarence Thomas wrote the disenting opinion.
| quote: | Thomas commented that if Congress could regulate a product that was never bought or sold or taken across state lines, it could regulate anything. In the dissent, Justice O'Connor defended the right "that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country."
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/3215657
|
Bad Rehnquist!! Bad Thomas!! When will these liberal activist justices ever learn??? But seriously, are you guys really states rights advocates or is that a conservative catch phrase that you just throw around? Would you care to critique rhenquist's and thomas's disent and demonstrate how they're wrong?
| quote: |
Justice Thomas, dissenting.
Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything--and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.
I
Respondents' local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not "Commerce ... among the several States." U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 3. By holding that Congress may regulate activity that is neither interstate nor commerce under the Interstate Commerce Clause, the Court abandons any attempt to enforce the Constitution's limits on federal power. The majority supports this conclusion by invoking, without explanation, the Necessary and Proper Clause. Regulating respondents' conduct, however, is not "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" Congress' restrictions on the interstate drug trade. Art. I, §8, cl. 18. Thus, neither the Commerce Clause nor the Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress the power to regulate respondents' conduct.
A
As I explained at length in United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549 (1995), the Commerce Clause empowers Congress to regulate the buying and selling of goods and services trafficked across state lines. Id., at 586-589 (concurring opinion). The Clause's text, structure, and history all indicate that, at the time of the founding, the term " 'commerce' consisted of selling, buying, and bartering, as well as transporting for these purposes." Id., at 585 (Thomas, J., concurring). Commerce, or trade, stood in contrast to productive activities like manufacturing and agriculture. Id., at 586-587 (Thomas, J., concurring). Throughout founding-era dictionaries, Madison's notes from the Constitutional Convention, The Federalist Papers, and the ratification debates, the term "commerce" is consistently used to mean trade or exchange--not all economic or gainful activity that has some attenuated connection to trade or exchange. Ibid. (Thomas, J., concurring); Barnett, The Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause, 68 U. Chi. L. Rev. 101, 112-125 (2001). The term "commerce" commonly meant trade or exchange (and shipping for these purposes) not simply to those involved in the drafting and ratification processes, but also to the general public. Barnett, New Evidence of the Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause, 55 Ark. L. Rev. 847, 857-862 (2003).
Even the majority does not argue that respondents' conduct is itself "Commerce among the several States." Art. I, §8, cl. 3. Ante, at 19. Monson and Raich neither buy nor sell the marijuana that they consume. They cultivate their cannabis entirely in the State of California--it never crosses state lines, much less as part of a commercial transaction. Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that "commerce" included the mere possession of a good or some purely personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana.
On this traditional understanding of "commerce," the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U. S. C. §801 et seq., regulates a great deal of marijuana trafficking that is interstate and commercial in character. The CSA does not, however, criminalize only the interstate buying and selling of marijuana. Instead, it bans the entire market--intrastate or interstate, noncommercial or commercial--for marijuana. Respondents are correct that the CSA exceeds Congress' commerce power as applied to their conduct, which is purely intrastate and noncommercial.
.
.
.
|
I'm sure all the federalists are jerking off to the implications of this ruling.
Hey, let's enact a federal law barring whistling in the shower!! (1) People who whistle in the shower don't concentrate on cleaning themselves; (2) therefore, they take longer showers; (3) therefore, they use more hot water; (4) therefore, they use more energy to heat the water; (5) therefore, they increase demand for energy in the interstate market; and (6) thus, Congress can regulate whistling in the shower as a means of regulating the interstate market for energy. Yay interstate commerce clause!!! What would we do without you and your blank check interpretation??
___________________
Retro ...
Last edited by occrider on Jun-08-2005 at 19:50
|
