This is my problem with this type of constitutional analysis: There's nothing in the Constitution giving states the power to define the limits of federal law. If federal law has overreached, then it's unconstitutional and invalid regardless of what state law says. If it hasn't overreached, then it overrides state law to the contrary. Either way, state law is irrelevant, and should never be treated as in any way relevant.
posted on 12/17/2004 9:12:14 AM PST
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-25 next last
LeRoy would be so proud. LeRoy you out there, what is your current screen name? Lost track of you after "No King but Jesus".
posted on 12/17/2004 9:14:04 AM PST
(Pray Daily For Our Troops and President Bush)
I was at the argument and there was quite a bit of discussion on the effect of this law on marijuana prices throughout the country. Also the California statute is so loosey-goosey. I think it's basically NORML at work.
posted on 12/17/2004 9:16:59 AM PST
There's nothing in the Constitution giving states the power to define the limits of federal law.
1. Powers of the Federal Government - Delegated Powers
- The federal government possesses all those powers that are delegated to it by the Constitution either expressly or by implication. These powers are enumerated principally as powers of Congress in Article I, Section 8. Included among these are the power to tax, borrow and coin money, maintain armies and navies, conduct foreign relations, and regulate interstate and foreign commerce. After the enumeration of powers in Article I, Section 8, the Constitution grants Congress further authority to "make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." This general grant of implied powers in the "elastic" or "necessary and proper" clause of the Constitution has raised numerous questions as to the actual scope of national authority. In many instances, such questions have been resolved by the Supreme Court.
- Despite the fact that the states are supreme in their sphere of activities, the federal Constitution and national laws constitute the supreme law of the land when conflicts arise from attempts of both jurisdictions to govern the same subject matter. The supremacy of national authority is indicated by Article VI, clause 2, of the Constitution, which provides as follows:
- This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme 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.
posted on 12/17/2004 9:17:19 AM PST
by E. Pluribus Unum
(Drug prohibition laws help fund terrorism.)
I have never heard a reasoned argument against marijuana use for medical purposes.
It always winds up in some kind of flaming war.
posted on 12/17/2004 9:17:58 AM PST
(DUmmie FUnnies and Pookie Toons-the start of a nice day)
"There's nothing in the Constitution giving states the power to define the limits of federal law."
There's no reason for states to define limits to Federal authority; that's the Constitution's job. If the Constitution doesn't give a power to the Federal government, then that power is reserved for the people or the states. Control over interstate commerce was granted to the Federal government. Control over intrastate commerce isn't among the Federal powers enumerated by the Constitution, and is thus reserved to the people and/or the states, as per Amendment X.
Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
posted on 12/17/2004 9:23:36 AM PST
(Conservatism begins at home. Security begins at the border. Please, someone, secure our borders.)
Maybe its time to start thinking about a Constitutional convention as a way to rein in the Federal Government. The Supreme Court has rewritten much of the Constitution expanding the powers of the Federal government far beyond anything that is rational.
posted on 12/17/2004 9:40:11 AM PST
(Reagan could see the Renaissance coming, but it will be up to you to make it happen.)
To: inquest; robertpaulsen; tacticalogic
rp and tl: pinging you to this thread to discuss the Wickard case, which is the basis of the "substantial effects" interpretation of the Commerce clause.
posted on 12/17/2004 10:03:37 AM PST
(Let's take the word "liberal" back from the commies!!)
If the federal government had the power to prohibit sales of marijuana, then there would have been no need for the 18th amendment (which prohibits the sale of alcohol,and was repealed by the 21st amendment).
posted on 12/17/2004 10:06:18 AM PST
(Veni, vidi, icked-kay utt-bay.)
Of course the state laws are relevant. Federalism is all about power sharing. The feds were to control certain things governments have a right to control in this country and the states the rest. The question in cases like these is who has the right to control a particular activity within a state, the state, the feds, or both? One of the determining factors in these commerce clause cases is whether the activity involves interstate commerce. The way the state laws are written can play a very important role in making this determination. If a state wants to allow something and has narrowly tailored state laws that discourage interstate commerce in thing or activity, then those laws are relevant in the determination of whether the activity involves interstate commerce. Just because something is relevant in a legal sense does not mean it is necessarily determinative, but it is useful in the analysis.
posted on 12/17/2004 10:45:18 AM PST
If Ashcroft v. Raich is decided for the government, future law students will have an even more appalling case to study.
If the government's argument that there can be no "as applied challenge" to commerce clause legislation prevails, it may be the last one.
posted on 12/17/2004 10:47:35 AM PST
("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
But that point seemed lost on the court during last week's oral argument. "It looks like Wickard to me," Justice Antonin Scalia said. "I always used to laugh at Wickard, but that's what Wickard says."
If he used to laugh at Wickard, presumably that was because it was so ridiculous and unbelieveable a decision. "...but that's what Wickard says"???!!! So bleeding what - is Scalia a robot? He is in exactly the perfect position to do something about it, which none of us can - he's on the Supreme Court, for crying out loud. He's not bound by precedent - if he was, then the Court could never have overruled Plessey v. Fergusen with Brown v. Board, and segregation would still be the law of the land. The Court is constantly interpreting the law, and finding that old decisions are either incorrect or inapplicable. What makes this case any different?
Well, if Wickard says that Congress can ban or penalize Angel Raich's marijuana -- noncommercial, medically necessary, locally grown, and legal under state law -- then it says Congress can reach absolutely any activity at all. When I was a law student in the 1980s, I didn't laugh at Wickard, I was appalled by it. If Ashcroft v. Raich is decided for the government, future law students will have an even more appalling case to study.
I couldn't agree more. This case is perhaps the single most important case that most of us will ever see, not because of the marijuana/War on Drugs issue (the MJ is merely a vehicle for deciding the larger issue), but because this will determine, for decades or longer into the future, what the role of the fed.gov will be vs. that of the states. Is it to be the Lord and Master, dictating to the states and people because of its outrageously expanded Commerce Clause powers, or is it to return to its traditional and intended role as a regulator of INTERSTATE commerce? We all are waiting and watching.
This thread is bound to......
posted on 12/17/2004 10:59:39 AM PST
(Christmas is not a secular holiday)
The illegalization of marijuana occurred in 1937 when the tortured soul of Harry J. Anslinger lobbied for its outlaw via the Marijuana Tax Stamp Act.
Driven primarily by racial fears, this piece of shit managed to outlaw a mostly benign natural psychoactive plant.
The following are excerpts of Mr. Anslinger's testimony before a Senate hearing on marijuana in 1937:
"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others."
"...the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races."
"Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death."
"You smoke a joint and you're likely to kill your brother."
"Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind."
I don't want to get into A Free Republic shootout about whether marijuana is evil or benign. It is just important to know where all this crap starts and what starts it.
By the way, if you have a Marijuana Tax Stamp you can legally grow it. Except if you have one, the Feds arrest you for it. How's that for a Catch 22?
posted on 12/17/2004 11:02:29 AM PST
(John, you said I was going to be the First Lady, as of now, you're on the couch . . .)
Oh... got to this one late. Well it's never to late to post my standard response to the Marijuana threads:
Uh, oh... I can feel the inrush of Freeper pot-heads flocking here to post their "Legalize Marijuana NOW!!!" rants. It's not a good feeling...
posted on 12/17/2004 11:10:03 AM PST
(Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.)
Liberals love all this states right shit when it involves gay marriage, and free dope, but when it comes to invasive intrusion in all areas of our life by the federal goverment from how much mileage my car has to get to what kind of shortwave radio I can use they say its the fed's responsiblity. John
posted on 12/17/2004 11:45:57 AM PST
WRONG It's about the AMA and its MASTER, the drug companies, currently FDA guidelines state that only a drug can cure, treat, or diagnose disease (all lies) and there is no way there are going to let natural substances that they can't charge for enter in the market.
posted on 12/17/2004 12:55:38 PM PST
interesing analysis. I'm no lawyer, but I'd say the Supreme Court was wrong in the Wickard case. How can the Federal Government tell people what they can and can't grow on their OWN land?!?!
How can the Federal government tell citizens what they put in their OWN bodies??!!?!?!
That's teh direction I would approach this case from.
posted on 12/17/2004 5:08:17 PM PST
I am about as right-wing a Christian as you can get, and I am emphatically for allowing states to determine whether or not to legalize the prescribing of marijuana for medical use.
I had cancer a few years ago, and while I didn't require any special pain/nausia medication, I understand that some people would benefit greatly from MJ.
Those who are against MJ for medical purposes don't understand how powerful physician-prescribed medicines are....
posted on 12/17/2004 6:21:40 PM PST
But under the federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970, the possession of marijuana for any reason is illegal.
If it took a constitutional amendment to make alcohol illegal, how did the feds get away with this by simply passing a law?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-25 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson