Leftcoast courts so rarely get it right...

The Federalist Newsletter ^ | The Federalist Staff

[FlyLow]

Because Leftcoast courts so rarely get it right, we can't help but comment when they do. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to reconsider its December ruling that state medical-marijuana laws trump attempts at central-government intrusion into prosecution for intrastate use of the drug. "Recreational" abuse of marijuana and other drugs is unfortunate, but now that voters in states such as California have so decreed, medical uses of the drug that never involve crossing the U.S. border or state borders within the U.S. are no proper concern of the central government. Every little once in awhile we get to say, accurately, "Federalism rules!"

While the proposed Marriage Amendment to our Constitution is well intended, it will accomplish nothing if the national courts interpret it to mean whatever they want it to mean. The Democrat Party knows that its real power lies in the judiciary, and thus they have used their Leftjudicial minions on the federal bench to amend the Constitution by judicial diktat (dubiously divining the "spirit of the Constitution") rather than following the Constitution's plan for amendment. That is why we ask you to take one minute to help us restore the integrity of our Constitution by joining a campaign entreating the President and Congress to support "The Enumerated Powers Amendment." This Amendment would give the House the ability to remove judges who do not abide by their oath to "support and defend the Constitution," rather than subject them to impeachment for criminal charges. http://PatriotPetitions.US/Amendment28

[KarlInOhio]

medical uses of the drug that never involve crossing the U.S. border or state borders within the U.S. are no proper concern of the central government.

Usually the 9th circus's rulings cause Madison and Jefferson to spin in their graves. I guess they decided that FDR needed a little posthumous exercise.

[bassmaner]

WOD bump

[MrB]

Actually, this is absolutely the right ruling.

Anything that isn't in Article I, Section 8, or in an amendment granting further power to the federal government - including intrAstate commerce - is none of the fedgov's business.

I bet, however, that this was NOT the reason for the ruling.

[robertpaulsen]

First off, the ruling was made by the Ninth Circuit Court (affectionately called the Ninth Circus), the most overturned, whacked-out, liberal court in the United States.

Second, this decision was made by a three judge panel, not the entire Ninth Circuit court -- even then, only two out of the three judges ruled in favor.

Third, the Court did find that "intrastate possession of controlled substances may impact interstate commerce", and that factor "weighs in favor of finding the CSA constitutional under the Commerce Clause". But, this factor alone was not sufficient for these two judges, deciding for six western states, to find the CSA constitutional for this class of activity. They, therefore, determined that "the appellants have demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits". Not a slam dunk by any means.

Fourth, a large factor in their decision was the fact that the product was not sold -- ie., no commerce. "Lacking sale, exchange or distribution, the activity does not possess the essential elements of commerce".

The dissenting judge makes an excellent point about this factor when he said, "It is simply impossible to distinguish the relevant conduct surrounding the cultivation and use of the marijuana crop at issue in this case from the cultivation and use of the wheatcrop that affected interstate commerce in Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)".

Expect the USSC to overturn this Ninth Circus opinion as they have many other times before, and they'll use Wickard v. Filburn to do it.

And so it is written by robertpaulsen.