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.
I don't see how. All you have to do is examine the activity in question, and inquire whether regulation of that activity is within the constitutional purview of the federal government. Anything else just unnecessarily muddies the issue.
posted on 12/17/2004 10:58:29 AM PST
(Now is the time to remove the leftist influence from the GOP. "Unity" can wait.)
"I don't see how. All you have to do is examine the activity in question, and inquire whether regulation of that activity is within the constitutional purview of the federal government. Anything else just unnecessarily muddies the issue."
What activity are you examining? Are you looking at whether the federal government outlaw marijuana altogether, or whether a person can grow a small amount of marijuana and use it within his state or have someone grow it for him for use within his state? The federal laws make no mention of medical marijuana. Possession or manufacturing of marijuana is illegal under federal law regardless of the purpose for the possession or manufacturing? Something else that has to be considered under current interpretation of the commerce clause accepted by the Supreme Court is whether the activity has an effect on interstate commerce. This calls into question how narrowly tailored the state laws are that define the conduct in question.
Again, this is all relevant, but certainly not the whole ball of wax. There is a lot to look at here. But make no mistake about it, this is a states rights issue. We're looking at federalism and just how far the feds can encroach in areas traditionally left up to the states. When this country was founded the sovereign colonies were agreeing to join together under a central authority that had very limited powers. The federal government was there to see that things ran smoothly between the states, but the these states were supposed to keep a great measure of their sovereignty. Otherwise they never would have signed on. A lot of us believe that the Supreme Court has made some important errors in interpreting the Constitution that have taken a severely eroded the sovereignty of the individual states, and that's not a good thing. The Constitution was full of little checks and balances built in by design to keep the federal government and any of its individual branches from ever having too much power. We were getting out of a situation at the time where we felt like we were being run over by a tyrannical government in England, and we didn't want that situation to develop here with our own far central government. The founding fathers tried to build in safeguards to protect against this, and those safeguards are no less important today than they were over 200 years ago.
posted on 12/17/2004 11:38:46 AM PST
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson