Posted on 06/08/2005 6:54:42 PM PDT by Crackingham
Aaackkk Phphhhhttt!!! See previous post. Tho' yes, I know. It's a pretty easy cop-out...
NOT a Federal concern. Have you re-read Article I, Section 8 or Amendment X lately?
State do that every day with liquor. California has elaborate safeguards regarding registered medical marijuana - and is someone is not a registered user, their pot cannot be used legally by a non-registered user. Nothing changes the larger law.
This is a strawman argument used to justify controlling activity that is neither interstate or commerce.
Dude... He was asking for an example of an activity that the Feds couldn't regulate, and I (without naming it) gave the example of US v. Lopez. Read the postings before you fire off a nasty comment please.
When the precedent the Court appeals to is almost identical to a reductio ad absurdum of the argument they used, it's a bad precedent.
oops. sorry.
Perhaps I am mistaken, but didn't Congress turn around and pass almost identical legislation after the Supreme Court struck down the law, including additional language attempting to make the case that "interstate commerce" was somehow affected? Isn't there a federal law on the books now which prohibits carrying in a school zone?
I did not think so - I'll look into it. I know there are plenty of state and local ordinances tho'.
I agree that medical marijuana is a waste of time.
Let the legalization be legalization, not this half-ass lawbreaking through misrepresentations to doctors. "Kaff, koff, I'm sick, gimme some THC, doc!"
That said, this was still a mistaken ruling. If pot grown and consumed in one state can be part of the ICC considerations, there is nothing that cannot be. I'd love to see them apply logic like this to the recusals of judges.
"I cannot sit on this case between Citibank and American Express because if Citibank loses, their rates will go up, that will affect the rates of banks nationwide, and that will affect my bank rates, and that means I have an interest. On the other hand, if American Express loses, their rates will go up, that will affect the rates of credit cards nationwide, and that will affect my credit cards, and that means I have an interest. In fact, I can't sit on any cases because I might somehow affect someone who may affect the market which might affect me."
"As intact as it was before, which is to say dead and buried, right where it's been since April 1865."
Bump to that. Sadly.
Well I'll be... They did. If I'm reading this article on the NRA's site correctly tho', it is a watered-down version of the previous attempt and contains language that subordinates it to local and state laws (I think.) Here's the link:
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/factsheets/read.aspx?ID=62
People long ago should have woken up to the fact that Scalia is no friend of limited government constitutional conservatives. He is a statist and will resort to any precedent to justify maximum powers for the federal government.
Scalia's strength is clarity and logic, which he will follow even to an absurdity such as this expansion of the interstate commerce clause to regulate anything that could conceivably become interstate commerce.
Wow, blast from the past!
I don’t think I would go quite as far as you in your description of Scalia — his votes are often right on the money constitutionally. After all these years, though, I remain convinced that his deference to precedent poisons his thinking too frequently.
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.