Marijuana decision expected any day

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."

"'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."

Actually, because the 2nd has not been incorporated into the 14th by the Supreme Court, our legal system would not agree with you - the states do have the power to regulate guns, so long as such regulation is in line with their own constitutions.

"Virtual prohibitions on concealed carry are reasonable? -- Your claim that you '- know the Constitution backwards and forwards - ', is wearing thin."

I don't see how it is wearing thin, except in your opinion, to which you are fully entitled. Aside from the incorporation problem that I've already mentioned, we make reasonable exceptions to things that are "absolute" elsewhere in the Bill of Rights. Congress *can* make a law making libel and slander illegal despite the 1st Amendment. If a state, or Congress, wants to ban concealed carry, that may well be within its power (the issue, so far as I know, has not been adjudicated). You can bear an arm and at the same time keep it fully visible.

"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."

This was not the intent of the authors of the Bill of Rights, that the BOR restrict the states, too. I think it should, generally, but until incorportation began, long after the 14th Amendment was passed, the courts were squarely on the side that the BOR did not apply to the states.

Finally, what is reasonable to one can be unreasonable to another, and vice versa. Everyone has their opinion. It is up to our legislatures to make laws *they* consider reasonable. If the people don't like those laws, they don't have to return the legislators to office, and if the laws definitely infringe, the courts have the power to over turn them. That's the way it is.

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.

You made one post to that thread, at #31.. -- And made no responses.

[Find #31, click on 'view replies' and feel free to answer them.]

Did I? Must have been a message board on another site I was thinking about, then.
In any case, I don't see much point in going back to a debate that is amost a year old. The thread has 500 replies for goodness sake.

If you bothered to click, you would see that you have only 6 replies.

The biggest problem is that this site doesn't email you when you get replies (does it?)

It does, but not with an Email, -- it's a "pings" box highlite at the top of your screen. Takes you to the 'Your Comments' page, w/replies.

and not being a regular, I probably just never came back.

Well, now you're back. Don't be shy just because a year has past..

'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.

Actually, because the 2nd has not been incorporated into the 14th by the Supreme Court, our legal system would not agree with you -

Our legal system has 'made up' the concept of "incorporation". There is no Constitutional basis for the idea, as Article VI is very clear on that issue.. The States are bound, -- "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding."

the states do have the power to regulate guns, so long as such regulation is in line with their own constitutions.

" -- the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" -------- "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Connect the dots Steve.. This is a pretty basic idea. Words mean what they say.

"Virtual prohibitions on concealed carry are reasonable? -- Your claim that you '- know the Constitution backwards and forwards - ', is wearing thin."

I don't see how it is wearing thin, except in your opinion, to which you are fully entitled. Aside from the incorporation problem that I've already mentioned,
[Its only a 'problem' to the lawyers that made it up]
we make reasonable exceptions to things that are "absolute" elsewhere in the Bill of Rights.

Exactly the problem, since your "WE" imagine yourselves to be reasonable on regulating guns, etc. -- when in fact you've created a nightmare of unconstitutional prohibitions.

Congress *can* make a law making libel and slander illegal despite the 1st Amendment. If a state, or Congress, wants to ban concealed carry, that may well be within its power (the issue, so far as I know, has not been adjudicated). You can bear an arm and at the same time keep it fully visible.

Yep, that you '- know the Constitution backwards and forwards - "may well be". -- But to my mind, the clear words of the 2nd are not up for "adjudication". They must be repealed if they are to be infringed. - Catch 22, you also agree on that point. You want the 2nd to be changed.

____________________________________

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.

This was not the intent of the authors of the Bill of Rights, that the BOR restrict the states, too.

The authors of Article VI belie your opinion. Their clear words are part of the "Law of the Land".

I think it should, generally, but until incorportation began, long after the 14th Amendment was passed, the courts were squarely on the side that the BOR did not apply to the states.

Not at all. In 1803, Justice Marshall's Marbury opinion clearly said that laws repugnant to the Constitution are null & void. -- ALL laws, made at any level of government in the USA, -- must conform to Constitutional principles.

Finally, what is reasonable to one can be unreasonable to another, and vice versa. Everyone has their opinion. It is up to our legislatures to make laws *they* consider reasonable. If the people don't like those laws, they don't have to return the legislators to office, and if the laws definitely infringe, the courts have the power to over turn them. That's the way it is.

"That's the way it is" to the 'living constitution' faction. Pretty odd that you don't realize that point.

"The authors of Article VI belie your opinion. Their clear words are part of the 'Law of the Land'."

Taking the Constitution and the Amendments as a whole, it may seem reasonable that this could be the case - however, it is not. First, Article 6 was written before the Bill of Rights, of course. The Framers had no idea the Bill of Rights was coming, so you cannot say that they specifically wanted all amendments to apply to the states as well, just because they had created the Supremacy Clause.

One of the big problems that anti-federalists had with the Constitution was the power they perceived that the federal government could usurp because of the lack of a bill of rights. Hence Madison made it his mission to get one in as soon as he could, once the new Congress was in session. The point was not to protect the people from the powers of the states but from the powers of the federal government.

On the question of the states, they felt that the states would be more responsive to the desires of the people of the state, being closer to the people. Read any book on the Bill of Rights, and you will doubtless find what they felt: the Bill of Rights was a bar on the federal government only, and not on the states. The 2nd Amendment, at the time of its passage, was not intended to have any effect on state law, rule, or regulation.

The authors of the 14th may not have known what they were getting themselves into, but the privileges and immunities clause has slowly been interpreted to mean that the Bill of Rights applies to that states as well as the federal government, but only as each disputed privilege or immunity is examined and incorporated into the 14th.

That this is the way it is is a simple fact. Wishing that the Bill of Rights applied to the states in toto at its passage is just wishing; wishing that it applied to the states as of the ratification of the 14th is also just wishing. Yes, the idea of "incorporation" is made up, but once it was made up, as recently as 1947, there was no going back.

Frankly, I would have no problem with a future Supreme Court announcing that the piecemeal incorporation process is over - and the entire Bill of Rights applies to the states as well as to the federal government. But that, too, may just be wishing.

, steve802 wrote:

Perhaps we shall have to agree to disagree - you are convinced I am anti-constitution (because of my views on one issue, I note), and I contend that I am not.

Since the debate seems to be on my opinion of the Constitution, and you can only infer certain things from one page on my site, I decree that I am more of an expert on the subject!
But of course, you can disagree with me

______________________________________

At #205, you in effect conceded my point.. You wrote:

" --- Frankly, I would have no problem with a future Supreme Court announcing that the piecemeal incorporation process is over - and the entire Bill of Rights applies to the states as well as to the federal government. But that, too, may just be wishing.
205 --- "

I trust that the next time I visit your site you will have altered your views about 'incorporation', and on how; "-- the entire Bill of Rights applies to the states as well as to the federal government."

Thanks.

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.