Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Ninth Circuit’s Revenge
NRO ^ | June 09, 2005 | Randy Barnett

Posted on 06/09/2005 9:54:50 PM PDT by neverdem

E-mail Author

Send

to a Friend

Version

7:41 a.m.

The Ninth Circuit’s Revenge

In Gonzales v. Raich, the circuit court won big.

By Randy Barnett

The Ninth Circuit finally got its revenge on the Supreme Court justices who seemed to delight in reversing it. In Gonzales v. Raich, it gave the conservatives a choice: Uphold the Ninth Circuit's ruling favoring individuals engaged in the wholly intrastate non-economic activity of growing and consuming cannabis for medical purposes as recommended by a doctor and permitted by state law, or retreat from the landmark Commerce Clause decisions of U.S. v. Lopez (1995) and U.S. v. Morrison (2000). Either way the Ninth Circuit wins. But with Justices Kennedy and Scalia on the liberal side of the Court, the Ninth Circuit won big. So did Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who first implemented this strategy in the child-porn case of U.S. v. McCoy.

Of course, my clients and I were betting the other way. Either all five federalist justices would hold to their principles, or a few of the more liberal justices might decide to follow the "precedents" of Lopez and Morrison and make an exception to their principled stance in favor of federal power out of concern for the tens of thousands of suffering patents who acted through the democratic processes of their states to enact compassionate use acts. It was not to be.

I credit the four Lopez and Morrison dissenters with putting their vision of the Constitution above precedent. I agree that unconstitutional precedent should not be followed (see my take on precedent here). I credit even more the three dissenters.

Justice O'Connor gets lots of grief from conservatives, but here she clearly put her longstanding judicial commitment to federalism above her expressed distaste for medical-cannabis laws. Her dissenting opinion adopted our analysis in its entirety. She clearly got it — as did the two justices who joined her opinion — which means the entire Court got it. In the end, the six in the majority completely understood our theory of the case, and simply disagreed.

I have sometimes heard even some of Chief Justice Rehnquist's greatest supporters question his commitment to principle, and few thought he would rule for us. Yet he did, and at a cost. Had he joined the majority, he could have written the opinion himself to limit the damage to his New Federalist legacy. Yet he joined the dissent anyway.

It comes as no surprise that I admire Justice Thomas's opinion. His opinion now establishes that there are not two principled originalist justices on the Court today, but one. To me, this means that when it comes to enumerated federal powers, there is only one justice who is clearly willing to put the mandate of the Constitution above his or her own views of either policy or what would make a better constitution than the one enacted.

I note something overlooked by all coverage of the case I have seen. Justices Rehnquist and Thomas both declined to join the paragraph in Justice O'Connor's dissent in which she expresses her disagreement with the state medical-cannabis laws. This does not necessarily mean that these two justices agree with the Compassionate Use Act, but it does mean that they explicitly refused to go on record against it. Contrast this with Justice Thomas's condemnation of the Texas anti-sodomy law in his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas.

Which brings me to the two justices in the federalist majority of Lopez and Morrison who have now joined the four dissenters in those two cases: Justices Kennedy and Scalia. Many reporters have asked me whether I can explain their votes. Veteran Supreme Court reporter Lyle Dennison has suggested that Justice Kennedy has a zero-toelrance approach to drugs. Justice Kennedy's deportment during oral argument supports that theory, but we will never know because he joined the majority opinion without comment. In Lopez and Morrison, Justice Kennedy offered concurring opinions that rested his decisions on a respect for the traditional functions of states, rather than on original meaning. Much of our brief was devoted to this issue, which, if anything, was stronger here — where states have affirmatively acted to protect the health and safety of their citizens — than it was in either Lopez or Morrison. How he reconciles his expressed support for the traditional law-enforcement role of the states with his joining what can only be described as the opposite view expressed by Justice Stevens only he can say. But he chose not to.

What about Justice Scalia? He did not join the majority opinion, resting his decision on the Necessary and Proper Clause, which he had previously described in Printz v. U.S. as "the last, best hope of those who defend ultra vires congressional action." In his concurring opinion in Raich, Justice Scalia appears to put his commitment to majoritarianism over his commitment to originalism. Yet this decision does run counter to his oft-expressed insistence that the people should act to protect their un-enumerated rights in state political processes rather than in federal court. Here this is exactly what the citizens of California and ten other states have done, but Justice Scalia's new stance on the Necessary and Proper Clause leaves citizens little, if any, room to protect their liberty from federal encroachment in the future. It has always seemed significant that he never joined Justice Thomas's originalist concurrences in Lopez and Morrison. Nor does he explain why Justice Thomas's originalist dissent in Raich is historically inaccurate, which would be incumbent on him as an "originalist justice" to do. Instead, Justice Scalia now joins in expanding the reach of the Commerce Clause power beyond even that which the Court had endorsed in Wickard v.

Filburn. In oral argument he admitted, "I always used to laugh at Wickard." Now it's Judge Stephen Reinhardt and the Ninth Circuit's turn to laugh.

Gonzales v. Raich has had the salutary effect of showing that federalism is not just for conservatives. Many liberals are distressed about Justice Stevens's opinion. With a Republican Congress they have come to see the virtue of state experimentation. The case also succeeded in raising the national visibility of the medical-cannabis cause. Maybe now Congress will act where it has refused to act in the past.

But Gonzales v. Raich has placed the future of the New Federalism in doubt, which makes future appointments to the Supreme Court all the more important. Will the president name someone who, like Justice Thomas, is truly committed to federalism? Or will his nominee be a fair-weather federalist, as Justice Scalia has turned out to be when the chips were down?

Randy Barnett is the Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Law at Boston University and author of Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty. He argued Gonzales v. Raich in the Supreme Court last November.


 

 
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/barnett200506090741.asp
     



TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: commerceclause; federalism; gonzalesvraich; ninthcircuit; raich; ruling; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

1 posted on 06/09/2005 9:54:50 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

bump


2 posted on 06/09/2005 10:04:05 PM PDT by Enterprise (Coming soon from Newsweek: "Fallujah - we had to destroy it in order to save it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I think part of the ruling was "payback": if you support a broad interpretation of the commerce clause, then you have to support it even when you don't like the result.

Of course, most of us would prefer a restricted version of the clause, but then they'd have to shut down 90% of the federal government, wouldn't they?


3 posted on 06/09/2005 10:17:39 PM PDT by mc6809e
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; CyberAnt; ken5050; Jim Robinson; Fedora; Southack; bitt; doug from upland; Calpernia; ...
This is what happens when an American state is overrun by lawmakers without morals -- who create and use immoral state laws, then under States Rights doctrine hold them like a gun to the U.S. Constitution's head. Truly a horrid quandary for SCOTUS--and America.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -- John Adams

"The wicked in his pride doth persecute the poor: let them be taken in the devices that they have imagined." -- Psalm 10:2
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=23&chapter=10&verse=2&version=9&context=verse
4 posted on 06/09/2005 10:54:35 PM PDT by The Spirit Of Allegiance (SAVE THE BRAINFOREST! Boycott the RED Dead Tree Media & NUKE the DNC Class Action Temper Tantrum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blurblogger


The pot stores closed in my area right after the announcement of this ruling.


5 posted on 06/09/2005 11:03:15 PM PDT by onyx (Pope John Paul II - May 18, 1920 - April 2, 2005 = SANTO SUBITO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: onyx

Where do you live...New Amsterdam?


6 posted on 06/09/2005 11:58:29 PM PDT by gr8eman (I think...therefore I am...a capitalist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
He argued Gonzales v. Raich in the Supreme Court last November.

So he has some bona fides to talk about this case. Actually, a very interesting analysis.

7 posted on 06/10/2005 12:04:22 AM PDT by TheOtherOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mc6809e

"but then they'd have to shut down 90% of the federal government, wouldn't they?"


YOU SAY THAT LIKE IT'S A BAD THING.....


8 posted on 06/10/2005 12:05:14 AM PDT by The Spirit Of Allegiance (SAVE THE BRAINFOREST! Boycott the RED Dead Tree Media & NUKE the DNC Class Action Temper Tantrum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Blurblogger

What's immoral about marijuana use for the sick?

(when alcohol is legal)


9 posted on 06/10/2005 12:12:13 AM PDT by Skywalk (Transdimensional Jihad!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk

"What's immoral about marijuana use for the sick?"

There are alternative painkillers.

In the bigger picture, I see an agenda here: an anti-American strategy to shred the U.S. Constitution via the 10th Amendment. This would be only one salvo in the bigger war.


I don't drink, toke or chew and don't go out with girls that do....


10 posted on 06/10/2005 12:21:39 AM PDT by The Spirit Of Allegiance (SAVE THE BRAINFOREST! Boycott the RED Dead Tree Media & NUKE the DNC Class Action Temper Tantrum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Blurblogger
This is what happens when an American state is overrun by lawmakers without morals

Well, it's certainly true that the lawmakers of California, just like those of other States (and those in Congress) are largely immoral. However, there is absolutely nothing immoral about the Compassionate Use Act. In fact, the only immorality lies with those who would prevent the sick from exercising their liberty right to heal themselves (provided they do not infringe on the rights of others in the process.) And the sin is a cardinal one, for it amounts to murder in some cases.

11 posted on 06/10/2005 12:23:12 AM PDT by sourcery ("Compelling State Interest" is the refuge of judicial activist traitors against the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Blurblogger
There are alternative painkillers.

And the alternative for Peter McWilliams would have been what, exactly?

12 posted on 06/10/2005 12:27:39 AM PDT by sourcery ("Compelling State Interest" is the refuge of judicial activist traitors against the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Blurblogger
In the bigger picture, I see an agenda here: an anti-American strategy to shred the U.S. Constitution via the 10th Amendment. This would be only one salvo in the bigger war.

Well, the 10th amendment IS part of the constitution.

Besides, being able to smoke pot and tell everyone else to piss off IS hardly anti-american.

It's just like being able to worship and tell the catholic church to piss off if they don't agree.

Live and let live is really what America is about. And with freedom, but still responsible for yourself.

13 posted on 06/10/2005 2:03:00 AM PDT by mc6809e
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Blurblogger
strategy to shred the U.S. Constitution via the 10th Amendment What an idiotic statement. The Tenth Amendment is part of the Constitution, and the Constitution would never have been ratified without a clear committment to add it (and the rest of the Bill of Rights).
14 posted on 06/10/2005 5:26:54 AM PDT by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: steve-b; Congressman Billybob; Buckhead; doug from upland; bert; ken5050; LibertarianInExile; ...
What an idiotic statement.

By your reliance on effective, persuasive use of facts, you convince me fully of both the merit of your opinion and your good manners. Clearly you are a learned gentleman of wisdom and couth, a defender of the helpless and gentle with those you deem ill-informed and whose sad plight you seek to remedy. It should be immediately clear to all that you, by your above public remark of respectful repartee and rebuttal to my own lowly opinion, that surely you are of exceptional stock, noble and a leader and champion of millions. A living example thou art, Sir, of The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin and How To Win Friends and Influence People; your prodigy for beneficial and educational cameraderie with the downtrodden and ignorant is breathtaking. Vividly more knowledgeable than mine, as the heavens are to the earth, is thy knowledge of the United States Constitution and the agenda of the Current Communist Goals and thy opinion unto mine.

NOT.

I'm sure you no more desire to shred me than the 9th Circuit Court desires to shred the Constitution, as later amended.

/s

I invite you to take a long hard look at your tagline, then your mirror.

15 posted on 06/10/2005 6:43:12 AM PDT by The Spirit Of Allegiance (SAVE THE BRAINFOREST! Boycott the RED Dead Tree Media & NUKE the DNC Class Action Temper Tantrum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Blurblogger

I don't have the AP at hand but as I remember this decision was based on interstate commerce.


16 posted on 06/10/2005 6:53:30 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection (http://hour9.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

I caught the IC aspect. The States Rights aspect is relevant as well.


17 posted on 06/10/2005 6:57:04 AM PDT by The Spirit Of Allegiance (SAVE THE BRAINFOREST! Boycott the RED Dead Tree Media & NUKE the DNC Class Action Temper Tantrum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Blurblogger
There are alternative painkillers.

Well, if marijuana use for the sick is immoral, why is the use of alternative painkillers permissible?

Those other painkillers are also subject to abuse, and frequently taken recreationally.

18 posted on 06/10/2005 7:00:00 AM PDT by Oberon (What does it take to make government shrink?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Blurblogger
CSM -

...Justice Stevens and the other majority justices saw the case as substantially similar to a landmark 1942 commerce-clause decision called Wickard v. Filburn, in which the high court upheld federal regulation of wheat production on a family farm even when the wheat was grown for home consumption.

"In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity," Stevens writes.

"In assessing the scope of Congress' Commerce Clause authority, the court need not determine whether respondents' activities, taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce in fact, but only whether a 'rational basis' exists for so concluding," he says..."

This is a states rights case.

19 posted on 06/10/2005 7:06:19 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection (http://hour9.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Blurblogger
who create and use immoral state laws

You are referring to?

20 posted on 06/10/2005 7:09:34 AM PDT by houeto ("Mr. President , close our borders now!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Or will his nominee be a fair-weather federalist, as Justice Scalia has turned out to be when the chips were down?

This has been my knock on Scalia all along. He talks the talk on federalism, but has no problem doing the Wickard when it suits his views. Plus, he seldom if ever met a search and seizure he didn't agree with, so he is weak in that regard as well.

Thomas's dissent was a thing of beauty. Maybe we can get Janice Rogers Brown on SCOTUS along with him and then really drive the libs bonkers.

21 posted on 06/10/2005 7:11:05 AM PDT by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

Raich ping


22 posted on 06/10/2005 7:12:00 AM PDT by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blurblogger
an anti-American strategy to shred the U.S. Constitution via the 10th Amendment.

That is a truly stunning statement. Probably the largest problem in this country today is the fact that the 10th Amendment has become nearly a dead letter. Putting the 10th back into prominence would curtail many of the federal abuses of power that we see today.

But you see the 10th as a means to SHRED the Constitution? Woof.

Maybe a living Constitution as seen by libs and big-government conservatives. But not to originalist conservatives who realize that government is not the answer to everything.

23 posted on 06/10/2005 7:15:15 AM PDT by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

The precedent this sets goes far beyond Wickard. Anything is now subject to Federal control.


24 posted on 06/10/2005 7:20:22 AM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mc6809e

I do not see this as a major issue the media is portraying.

Essentially the states tried to regulate a "medication."

If the states were to have had merely made it legal to grow it without the medical pretext then the case would have been different.

The court essentially called the states on the absurdity of marajana as a "medicial" product.


25 posted on 06/10/2005 7:26:04 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
The court essentially called the states on the absurdity of marajana as a "medicial" product.

It's not the proper role of SCOTUS to decide if something that is not interstate and not commerce is absurd. This was a state matter that SCOTUS warped Wickard and the Necessary and Proper clause to justify federal jurisidiction over every activity in the land.

26 posted on 06/10/2005 7:37:31 AM PDT by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Veteran Supreme Court reporter Lyle Dennison has suggested that Justice Kennedy has a zero-toelrance approach to drugs.

Ah, draw your conclusion and work backwards from there.

27 posted on 06/10/2005 7:40:59 AM PDT by MileHi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blurblogger
I don't drink, toke or chew and don't go out with girls that do....

Oh, well then by all means, there ought to be a law. And a Federal one at that.

28 posted on 06/10/2005 7:42:02 AM PDT by MileHi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Blurblogger
This is what happens when an American state is overrun by lawmakers without morals -- who create and use immoral state laws, then under States Rights doctrine hold them like a gun to the U.S. Constitution's head. Truly a horrid quandary for SCOTUS--and America.

And yet while Adams was alive, there was not a federal WOD, WOI, WOT, WOP, and any other 'war' the national government has started. Why when Adams was alive, the plant in question was not considered illegal. How is that? The Tenth Amendment is clear. No power belonging explicitly to the national government belongs to the states or the citizens thereof

Perhaps it's time to quit worrying about which judges will make activist decisions for 'our' side and look for judges that rule based solely on the Constitution and the limitations on the national government. Of course don't expect a Republican or Democrat to nominate someone like that very often. I'm seriously disappointed in Scalia.

29 posted on 06/10/2005 7:49:33 AM PDT by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MileHi; Victoria Delsoul

> > Oh, well then by all means, there ought to be a law. And a Federal one at that. < <

"Oh, well then by all means, there ought to be a law. And a Federal one at that."


There is. Formerly known as Blue Laws and varying from state to state, until the Conspiratorial Overarching National Federal Omnibus Morality Legislation (CONFORM) Act was instituted, in 1984.... /sarc.

As opposed to Cole's Law, which is thinly sliced cabbage....


30 posted on 06/10/2005 7:52:44 AM PDT by The Spirit Of Allegiance (SAVE THE BRAINFOREST! Boycott the RED Dead Tree Media & NUKE the DNC Class Action Temper Tantrum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Blurblogger
Formerly known as Blue Laws and varying from state to state..

Well, can't have that in this Brave New World, now can we?

31 posted on 06/10/2005 7:57:33 AM PDT by MileHi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

"Probably the largest problem in this country today is the fact that the 10th Amendment has become nearly a dead letter."


Agreed, but still, like a buried World War II bomb, still potentially potent....


32 posted on 06/10/2005 7:59:27 AM PDT by The Spirit Of Allegiance (SAVE THE BRAINFOREST! Boycott the RED Dead Tree Media & NUKE the DNC Class Action Temper Tantrum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
From the Opinion of the Court in Wickard v. Filburn:

"The general scheme of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 as related to wheat is to control the volume moving in interstate and foreign commerce in order to avoid surpluses and shortages and the consequent abnormally low or high wheat prices and obstructions to commerce. Within prescribed limits and by prescribed standards the Secretary of Agriculture is directed to ascertain and proclaim each year a national acreage allotment for the next crop of wheat, which is then apportioned to the states and their counties, and is eventually broken up into allotments for individual farms.

Thus speaketh the Supreme Soviet of the New Deal.

Wickard and the current case have this much in common: Both were about a ridiculous overreach of Federal Government Power and SCOTUS went along with it in both cases.

If I take these two decisions and Griswold, I can't grow wheat to feed myself or grow grass to smoke, but I have a fundamental right to a rubber. (I know Griswold was versus Connecticut, but the decision as given would prevent Congressional banning of rubbers also).

Now that Republicans are (mostly) in charge in Washington, it's pretty interesting that some on the LEFT are all of a sudden Federalists. Frankly, though, I don't think that's the issue. I don't want tyranny in a statehouse any more than I want it in Washington.

33 posted on 06/10/2005 8:05:14 AM PDT by You Dirty Rats (Forget Blackwell for Governor! Blackwell for Senate '06!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: houeto; Tumbleweed_Connection; billbears; dirtboy

Immoral state laws:

I'm referring to such things as the Massachusetts 'gay marriage' law, Maine's new no-parental-notification for teen abortion legislation, Nevada's human trafficking--oops I mean prostitution--laws....

Not all these are necessarily aimed at, or can be aimed at, SCOTUS and the teardown of the USA, of course. Some definitely ARE.

OTOH, the letter of the law does not make a legal act moral. Khan, Stalin and Mao had plenty of laws.


34 posted on 06/10/2005 8:14:03 AM PDT by The Spirit Of Allegiance (SAVE THE BRAINFOREST! Boycott the RED Dead Tree Media & NUKE the DNC Class Action Temper Tantrum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Blurblogger
I'm referring to such things as the Massachusetts 'gay marriage' law, Maine's new no-parental-notification for teen abortion legislation, Nevada's human trafficking--oops I mean prostitution--laws....

So since Nevada makes prositution legal, the feds should have the power to stop that?

35 posted on 06/10/2005 8:15:11 AM PDT by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

Too many of those who live in Nevada and elsewhere have put pocketbock or personal gratification or whatever above principles. And when a State goes the way of the world, it cannot help but influence the rest of the federal body.

"We Hold These Truths to be self-evident...." Our country was built on moral premises. Forsake those and everything becomes a game of what's legal--where--when--according to the LETTER of the law rather than vice versa as originally intended.


36 posted on 06/10/2005 8:28:51 AM PDT by The Spirit Of Allegiance (SAVE THE BRAINFOREST! Boycott the RED Dead Tree Media & NUKE the DNC Class Action Temper Tantrum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Blurblogger
I'm referring to such things as the Massachusetts 'gay marriage' law, Maine's new no-parental-notification for teen abortion legislation, Nevada's human trafficking--oops I mean prostitution--laws....

So? Don't live in Massachusetts, Maine, or Nevada. I don't agree with those laws either however as a conservative I'm not about to approve of the national government overriding those laws either. Federalism, although for the most part broken thanks to Republicans and Democrats, is about the only saving grace we have against the national government

37 posted on 06/10/2005 8:30:06 AM PDT by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Blurblogger
And when a State goes the way of the world, it cannot help but influence the rest of the federal body.

Yes I suppose that's why prostitution has been legalized in the other 49 states of the union....

"We Hold These Truths to be self-evident...." Our country was built on moral premises. Forsake those and everything becomes a game of what's legal--where--when--according to the LETTER of the law rather than vice versa as originally intended.

Yes we hold these truths to be self evident. The truth of natural law and rights, that each individual's rights extend to themselves as long as they cause no harm of another individual. However, the limitation on this is at the state level as the 10th Amendment gives the respective states the right to pass laws such as they see fit.

38 posted on 06/10/2005 8:33:35 AM PDT by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

The federal government regulates medication.

This was a case of medication.

If the states wanted to legalize it as a NONmedication then your argument would stand.


39 posted on 06/10/2005 9:24:42 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
The federal government regulates medication. This was a case of medication.

The feds overreach here. Morphine is medication. And you can get it prescribed under federal law.

Marijuana cannot be prescribed, period.

But it's a plant. You can grow it like tomatoes. People in California grew it and consumed it, without commerce and without the plant crossing state lines, under the auspices of state law.

And the SCOTUS decision, and specifically Scalia's concurrence, dealt with marijuana as a "fungible" commodity as the reason to allow federal control of it. Scalia argued there was no way to tell medical marijuana apart from illegal weed, even though states track booze within their borders with stamps and controls. So the argument basically boils down to, do we think the feds should be able to ban pot, and let's make up some reason why.

Which is activism.

40 posted on 06/10/2005 9:29:47 AM PDT by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

you just prove my point.

Prescriptions are regulated FEDERALLY.

The medical marajuana people should go through the FDA process to have it recognized. (like morphine)

Medication is federally regulated, period.

The states do not regulate medication.

The second the states tried to do the guise of "medical" it was doomed to failure. It would be no different than a state allowing any other unapproved medication.

NOW, if the citizens want to pass a straight legalization law without the issue of "medical", I think your arguments have validity. That is NOT the case under the present law struck down. Scalia's opinion essentially points that out, all legal or all illegal. (no little bit pregnant)

At that point it would be like Nevada having legalized prostitution. Ok WITHIN the state but not outside the state.



41 posted on 06/10/2005 9:42:20 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
Prescriptions are regulated FEDERALLY.

A doctor can prescribe rest. Or massage.

Under your reasoning, the feds could regulate backrubs.

Once again, medical marijuana in California did not involve manufacturing of a chemical. It was nothing more than growing some plants, drying them, and distributing them within the state to patients. If the feds can regulate that, then they can regulate everything.

42 posted on 06/10/2005 9:52:24 AM PDT by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
The court essentially called the states on the absurdity of marajana as a "medicial" product.

I've had more than enough grief prescribing Marinol for my patients who needed appetite stimulation. Megace uses a progesterone analog that has its own problems. Since marijuana has been used as a medicine for more than a few millenia, and if you enter cannabinoid receptors OR endocannabinoid system into PubMed, you get at least 2422 results, I find your comment astounding both in regard to medicine and the Constitution.

43 posted on 06/10/2005 10:17:25 AM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
Please check what Sally Satel, from the American Enterprise Institute, has to say about the Fed's co-operation, or lack thereof, in medical marjuana research, Good to Grow.
44 posted on 06/10/2005 10:31:26 AM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Oberon
Those other painkillers are also subject to abuse, and frequently taken recreationally

Anyone who knows anything about pharmaceuticals SHOULD know that the most addictive and abused drugs are persecription painkillers. Ask Rush Limbaugh.

45 posted on 06/10/2005 10:36:16 AM PDT by Smogger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Blurblogger
In the bigger picture, I see an agenda here: an anti-American strategy to shred the U.S. Constitution via the 10th Amendment. This would be only one salvo in the bigger war.

There is no doubt that organizations such as the ACLU are intent on turning the constitution on it's head. It's been going on for many years. The courts have taken power from the administration and the legislature. They now have authority to rule on anything in anyway that suits them.

46 posted on 06/10/2005 11:05:58 AM PDT by oldbrowser (You lost the election.....get over it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
The medicinal aspects are not important. If one takes the time to read Steven's opinions one realizes a mindset willing to rewrite federal law using foreign law. Here he maintained federal government superseded state government. From a constitutional perspective, the will of the people has taken a big slap in the face. We have been through this before just recently.
47 posted on 06/10/2005 11:47:32 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection (http://hour9.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

The medicinal aspects are not to be ignored. Why the hell do we have cannabinoid receptors? Trashing the Constitution is a separate issue.


48 posted on 06/10/2005 12:02:53 PM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

The ruling doesn't deal with it so I choose not to. The majority decision was based on interstate commerce.


49 posted on 06/10/2005 12:11:57 PM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection (http://hour9.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Blurblogger

I like your post.



Sure do wish I could read it. ;o)


50 posted on 06/10/2005 1:21:02 PM PDT by dixiechick2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson