Posted on 03/04/2005 5:15:52 PM PST by Know your rights
Can California have its marijuana and smoke it too?
Since voters passed the Medical Marijuana Act in 1996, the state law has been seemingly in contradiction with federal laws that say marijuana is an illegal drug under any circumstances.
The U.S. Supreme Court is now reviewing Ashcroft vs. Raich, in which a decision is expected any day regarding the federal government's authority over the matter.
And according to Americans for Safe Access, a group working for medical marijuana rights, now may be as good a time as any for a ruling to be made.
"Right now, the Supreme Court is definitely oriented towards state rights," said campaign director Hilary McQuie. "I don't want to make a bet, but that more than any other factor could be in favor of the Reich decision."
California resident Angel Raich, a prescribed medical marijuana user, sued the federal government in 2002 to challenge federal laws that banned her from using the substance under the Medical Marijuana Act.
After the act passed, federal agents began periodic raids in California to break up marijuana cooperatives, saying that the federal Controlled Substance Act (CSA) does not recognize medical marijuana.
While the US Constitution grants policing power to states, it stipulates that the federal government may intervene when the situation involves commerce between states.
According to court documents, the federal government believes it can override the state law using the CSA because there are sales taking place.
But a Dec 16, 2003 ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided that using "the CSA is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress' Commerce Clause authority." The government's appeal of that decision landed the case in the Supreme Court in April of 2004.
Patrick Murphy, a California drug policy expert, says that the case could easily go either way at this point; regardless, Californians who support medical marijuana shouldn't panic if the court rules in favor the government.
"The notion of an individual in possession is now a question that a state can make a judgment on and this decision won't overturn that," Murphy said. "More likely, this could settle the question of whether state law is trumped by federal."
The Drug Free America Foundation, an umbrella group that filed a brief in favor of the government's position, did not return calls from The California Aggie for comment.
Despite the assurance that medical marijuana users would still be protected under state law, some wonder whether the federal government could use a win to conduct more frequent raids.
Murphy said the likelihood of such action is low, although the government may still decide to target doctors in an effort to make an example of them.
"But you have to have someone out there willing to make the arrest, and then you also have to have someone willing to prosecute it, and it's just not a very good use of resources," he continued. "Frankly, drugs just aren't a priority for the federal government anymore."
Even a ruling in favor of Raich, although viewed as a big boost for medical marijuana advocates, is something McQuie said is only a minor protection in the larger picture.
"It doesn't end the fight for medical marijuana if it wins because we need to have it rescheduled at the federal level," McQuie said. "But it is a move in the right direction."
Approve of it? CJ is a master at that tactic.
EXACTLY
Ideally these sorts of vanity issues should to be discussed and showboated in the chat forum.
24 Cultural Jihad
__________________________________
So you approve of his tactic of fussing and whining until he gets a news thread backroomed? Why this fear of open debate?
26 Know your rights
_____________________________________
dirtboy wrote:
Approve of it? CJ is a master at that tactic.
I own a book written by Leonard Peikoff (one of Ayn Rand's students) titled THE OMINOUS PARALLELS: A Brilliant Study of America Today--& the "Ominois Parallels" w/ the Chaos of Pre-Hitler Germany, & it's an EXCELLENT book...however, the author comes down very hard against religion (or better yet, FAITH) that caused the German people to turn to Hitler during the days Bismark was in power. His athiestic attitude really got to me.
I'm not so sure. With different states having different CC laws, how can the USSC say that all those different CC laws are violating the first amendment?
Whether USSC says so or not, the incorporation status of the Second Amendment would not affect it one way or the other. The only thing the Court would be saying about the Second Amendment, in your scenario, is that it does not protect CC.
Here's the deal. If and when the second amendment is incorporated by some federal case, the USSC will define the right protected.
Which is currently none under case law. AFAIK, no gun control law has ever been overturned on the basis of the Second Amendment. The worst that could happen is that the Second Amendment continues its current status under case law.
The states may protect more than that federal minimum, but there will be pressure put on the state to only protect what the federal government protects.
And the federal protection of the RKBA is currently zero under case law. If USSC said tomorrow that the Second Amendment applies to the States, you would still have zero Federal protection from the courts.
The gun control groups may say to the state legislature that the USSC has ruled that CC is unconstitutional and is not a right protected by the second amenmdment, so why does that state allow it?
If CC is ruled unconstitutional, then they would likely win a court challenge. However, the incorporation status of the Second would not affect the case, since they already ruled it doesn't protect CC, in your example.
There is simply no downside to incorporation, and there is potential upside.
Apparently WODmania leads to delusions of being Jim Robinson. Very sad.
No. Are you a big-government "conservative"?
A Supreme Court decision goes well beyond being merely a "personal lifestyle choices issue."
"The man that wrote this proposal for repealing the 2nd Amendment is howling mad."
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this - care to explain? I'm happy to expand on my views as time allows.
"Here's an even better link to the same site, where the author/owner advocates REPEAL of the 2nd Amendment:
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2nd.html "
Indeed, I do advocate for the repeal of our current 2nd, to be replaced with the text of an amendment that is unambiguous as to its meaning. The fact that people can debate the actual meaning of the 2nd means, to me, that it is flawed. I want to protect the rights of gun owners and users, for purposes that are reasonable and normal. If the "wrong people" take hold of the courts, can't you see the text of the current 2nd amendment being interpreted in a way that would allow the confiscation of guns? I can, though only in my maddest of nightmares ... but I can also see, in a polar opposite nightmare, a society with no restrictions on guns, and society of the gun.
With both sides pulling so hard, so we have reached an equilibrium, but it may not be very hardy.
My replacement amendment protects that which is the most important, in my opinion. If the discussion can be kept civil, I welcome more opinion ... though this may not be the thread for that.
" ---- So the real question seems to be, can we have the a constitutional freedom to bear arms, and still allow restriction and regulation?
Reasonable restrictions do seem to be the way to go, acknowledging the Amendment, but molding it, as we've done with much of the Constitution. The trick is finding that balance between freedom and reasonable regulation. Gun ownership is indeed a right - but it is also a grand responsibility. With responsibility comes the interests of society to ensure that guns are used safely and are used by those with proper training and licensing.
If we can agree on this simple premise, it should not be too difficult to work out the details and find a proper compromise.
Recognizing that the need to arm the populace as a militia is no longer of much concern, but also realizing that firearms are a part of our history and culture and are used by many for both personal defense and sport, this site has proposed a new 2nd Amendment - an amendment to replace the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution.
This proposed text is offered as a way to spark discussion of the topic.
Section 1. The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2. The right of the people to keep arms reasonable for hunting, sport, collecting, and personal defense shall not be infringed.
Section 3. Restrictions of arms must be found to be reasonable under Section 2 by a two-thirds vote of Congress in two consecutive sessions of Congress before they can be forwarded to the President for approval.
This proposed amendment is a truer representation of how our society views our freedom to bear arms. --- "
Constitutional Topic: The Second Amendment - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net Address:http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2nd.html
______________________________________
The man that wrote this proposal for repealing the 2nd Amendment is howling mad..
__ And robertpaulsen cites his website at every opportunity.
178 P_A_I
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this - care to explain? I'm happy to expand on my views as time allows.
191 steve802
Your comment that,
" -- This proposed amendment is a truer representation of how our society views our freedom to bear arms. --- " is quite delusional.
I'd say at BEST, possibly 50% of Americans would agree that " -- Reasonable restrictions do seem to be the way to go, acknowledging the Amendment, but molding it, as we've done with much of the Constitution. -- "
Indeed, I do advocate for the repeal of our current 2nd, to be replaced with the text of an amendment that is unambiguous as to its meaning.
The recent paper by the Justice Dept says that the 2nd is unambiguous. It is an individual right, and the reference to militia is self explanatory. -- Did you bother read to it, or is your mind made up?
The fact that people can debate the actual meaning of the 2nd means, to me, that it is flawed. I want to protect the rights of gun owners and users, for purposes that are reasonable and normal. If the "wrong people" take hold of the courts, can't you see the text of the current 2nd amendment being interpreted in a way that would allow the confiscation of guns? I can, though only in my maddest of nightmares ... but I can also see, in a polar opposite nightmare, a society with no restrictions on guns, and society of the gun.
Horrors, a society like New Hampshire's, where men have had the freedom to carry concealed guns about for over 200 years? What a nightmare!
With both sides pulling so hard, so we have reached an equilibrium, but it may not be very hardy. My replacement amendment protects that which is the most important, in my opinion. If the discussion can be kept civil, I welcome more opinion ... though this may not be the thread for that.
The original thread criticizing your site [and views on guns] is still available. -- Feel free to defend yourself there.
In fact, why did you abandon that effort initially? -- You got a lot of civil responses, and never answered.
The U.S. Constitution [Misinterpreted] Online
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1168296/posts
I recall this discussion ... and?
I didn't try to quote statistics ... but my feeling (and granted, it is solely my feeling) is that if you asked the average person on the street what the freedom to bear arms means, they would not disagree that it means the freedom to own guns for the purposes of sport, hunting, and personal defense. More knowledgeable persons might mention the militia. But I don't think most people associate the 2nd with the militia. I know the Constitution backwards and forwards, and my own opinion, as expressed on that page, is that the inclusion of the militia in the 2nd is obsolete. I expanded on these views in the FR post you referenced in your next message.
The recent paper by the Justice Dept says that the 2nd is unambiguous. It is an individual right, and the reference to militia is self explanatory. -- Did you bother read to it, or is your mind made up?
I read it, but it was some time ago - but regardless, I disagree with their conclusion. The fact that we can debate it at all indicates to be ambiguity. Of course, pro-gunners say it is not ambiguous and the RKBA is absolute. And, of course, anti-gunners say it is not ambiguous and the RKBA is infinitely regulatable. This paradox indicates ambiguity. To me at least.
Horrors, a society like New Hampshire's, where men have had the freedom to carry concealed guns about for over 200 years? What a nightmare!
As I understand it, my own state, Vermont, also allows unrestricted concealed carry - which is fine for Vermont, and fine for New Hampshire. We cannot say that what is good for Vermont and New Hampshire is, by definition, good for New York or Florida or California. In those states, restricting concealed carry is a reasonable restriction - in Vermont or New Hamshire, it could become one in the future.
The original thread criticizing your site [and views on guns] is still available. -- Feel free to defend yourself there. In fact, why did you abandon that effort initially? -- You got a lot of civil responses, and never answered.
Ah, I understand your reference now ... I wasinvolved on that thread for several days, I don't think I abandoned it. I stopped responding to the thread and, in fact, looking at the thread because I felt I made all the pertinent points I wanted to make, nothing new was being said, and time no longer permitted me to keep up. I came here because I wanted to address your concerns that I am "howling mad."
I didn't try to quote statistics ... but my feeling (and granted, it is solely my feeling) is that if you asked the average person on the street what the freedom to bear arms means, they would not disagree that it means the freedom to own guns for the purposes of sport, hunting, and personal defense.
True enough. And the 2nd quite clearly says that it is not to be infringed. Period.
More knowledgeable persons might mention the militia. But I don't think most people associate the 2nd with the militia.
The militia phrase is self explanatory, except to those who use it to confuse the issue.
I know the Constitution backwards and forwards, and my own opinion, as expressed on that page, is that the inclusion of the militia in the 2nd is obsolete.
So? You can ignore it then. The fact remains that the framers thought it was a self evident explanation of WHY the Right was not to be infringed.
I expanded on these views in the FR post you referenced in your next message.
The recent paper by the Justice Dept says that the 2nd is unambiguous. It is an individual right, and the reference to militia is self explanatory. -- Did you bother read to it, or is your mind made up?
I read it, but it was some time ago - but regardless, I disagree with their conclusion. The fact that we can debate it at all indicates to be ambiguity.
Its only ambiguous to you. You're begging the real question of whether we have an inalienable right to keep & bear arms. We do..
Of course, pro-gunners say it is not ambiguous and the RKBA is absolute.
Pro-Constitutionalists make that point. Others differ.
And, of course, anti-gunners say it is not ambiguous and the RKBA is infinitely regulatable. This paradox indicates ambiguity. To me at least.
And to me, at least, such a position repudiates one of our most fundamental individual rights. It is "repugnant" to basic Constitutional principles, in Justice John Marshall's view.
____________________________________
Horrors, a society like New Hampshire's, where men have had the freedom to carry concealed guns about for over 200 years? What a nightmare!
As I understand it, my own state, Vermont, also allows unrestricted concealed carry - which is fine for Vermont, and fine for New Hampshire.
'Allows". -- There you go again, assuming that a State has a power under the US Constitution, - to infringe on our Right to bear arms. - They do not.
We cannot say that what is good for Vermont and New Hampshire is, by definition, good for New York or Florida or California. In those states, restricting concealed carry is a reasonable restriction - in Vermont or New Hamshire, it could become one in the future.
Virtual prohibitions on concealed carry are reasonable? -- Your claim that you "- know the Constitution backwards and forwards - ", is wearing thin.
Article VI says that the 2nd Amendment, is part of the " - Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding. - "
Unreasonable restrictions on concealed carry are a clear infringement.
Like states have the right to make their own laws on abortion? How 'bout sodomy?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.