Skip to comments.States Rights vs. Federal Power- Medical Marijuana Illegal
Posted on 06/06/2005 7:36:18 PM PDT by sactodan
The Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision ruled today that Federal Agents may arrest medical marijuana users in States that allow marijuana to be prescribed by a physician. The decision was not based on the marijuana debate, is it harmful or beneficial? The Federal Government claimed it has the right to regulate interstate commerce.
Ten states presently have laws on the books that allow Medical Marijuana, California being one of them. California voters approved Proposition 215 in November of 1996 in a 55.6% to 44.4% vote.
Do you agree with the ruling because you are against illegal drug use, or are you against it because the Court appears to be using the Interstate Commerce ruling to extend the reach of the Federal Government?
As a conservative, I am going with State's Rights. Medical marijuana, like it or not was legalized in California by initiative. The will of the people is being subverted by activist judges, once again.
Clarence Thomas had it absolutely right.
What did Thomas say?
The Supremes blew it on this one big time.
If the weed is produced within a state and used within a state, the fedz should have nothing to say about it
The interesting this is that the "drug" libs now are in a poisition of support strict constitutionalism.
You know what they say about stopped clocks. But of course the anti-federalist coalition is much more powerful than either the Republicans or the Democrats. Both parties arrogate more federal power (and less federal responsibility) as a matter of policy.
Clarence Thomas: "If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything--and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers."
Judge Thomas is correct.
I was surprised that Scalia didn't dissent as well, he's usually a hardline state's rights kinda guy.
I still don't understand how the commerce clause allows for the black market to play into 'commerce'.
Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anythingand the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.
Time to hit the reset button and re-boot.
Shame to have to waste a perfectly good States' Rights argument on this issue. MJ has no value even if it's believers think it does.
Quite a paradox.
The way I understand the SCOTUS decision is that since there is no interstate commerce involved, that has an effect/impact on interstate commerce.
"The Congress shall have Power to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"
"I was surprised that Scalia didn't dissent as well, he's usually a hardline state's rights kinda guy."
Yeah, me and one of the attys at work are keen to read his reasoning on this. Hopefully he spelled it out.
Seems like just another judicial fiat. The law is what we'd like it to be at any given moment, on any given subject, on any capricious whim.
You're not confused, they're propping up a bunch of people on federal welfare programs like the Injustice Dept., the FBI, the ATF, the ......
So only drugs produced by major drug companies have value?
That's right: That is part of what is so interesting about this decision, today. SCOTUS is as a girl? Allowed to change her mind and rules at whim?
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.