Posted on 07/01/2006 7:19:16 AM PDT by LouAvul
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A recent Supreme Court ruling that Congress can ban homegrown marijuana for medical use in California led Friday to the reinstatement of an Arizona man's overturned conviction for having homemade machine guns.
Prosecutors in both cases invoked the Constitution's interstate commerce clause, despite the fact that the cases centered on items that were homemade, or homegrown, and didn't involve commerce or crossing state lines. The courts ruled, however, that the items still can affect interstate commerce and therefore can be regulated by federal law.
In the machine gun case, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday reinstated the convictions of Robert Wilson Stewart, 67, of Mesa, Ariz. The three-judge panel reversed its own previous decision to overturn the convictions because he never tried to sell his weapons or transport them over state lines.
Federal agents raided Stewart's house in June 2000 and found five machine guns, which Stewart argued did not violate the congressionally mandated ban on certain assault weapons because they were homemade and not for sale. The appellate court initially agreed with Stewart and overturned his convictions in 2003, ruling the interstate commerce clause did not apply.
The three-judge panel, however, was ordered by the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision after the justices ruled in 2005 that the federal government could prosecute medical marijuana users and their suppliers even if their activity was confined to California.
In the marijuana case, brought by Oakland resident Angel Raich, the majority of Supreme Court justices ruled that the interstate commerce clause makes California's medical marijuana law illegal. The court said homegrown marijuana confined to the state still can affect the entire national market for the drug, allowing for federal regulation.
The same rationale was applied by the appeals court in the homemade machine gun case.
(Excerpt) Read more at modbee.com ...
The Republic is dead. Government is now legitimated and pursued via the Commerce clause. The remainder of the Constitution is subordinate and immaterial.
Once again, gun bans and marijuana prohibiton are found bound together. The law banning the posession of a machine gun without having a virtually unobtainable tax stamp was the model for the Marijuana Tax Act back in the '30's.
The $22 in my pocket can still affect the entire national economy, too. I guess I'm subject to the commerce clause, too.
I think it is the Interstate Commerce clause that also insists we have to import garbage from other states into PA and from Canada into the USA. Maybe it is time to repeal that sucker.
Yes, even if you didn't want that job in NYC, you could still go there and take it at any time, thus opening the door to regulation of your every move.
I propose that an amendment to restrict the silly application of interstate commerce rules to intrastate commerce would be a much better use of time for the Congress than a "Marriage" amendment.
That's going to put the jobs of a lot of beltway bureaucrats at risk, and they have better access to your representatives than you do.
That's a feature, not a bug.
And RTM as soon as it'll compile.
"But, this is CA, the center of the universe for the loony left."
You don't get the connnection? Well, two items produced and consumed locally (the guns were never for sale, the pot was smoked where it was grown) are found subject to laws that regulate state - to - state transactions. I hope that helps.
As far as being from the loony left, the loony left in CA voted to legalize this use of marijuana. So it would be a case of misapplication of the Commerce clause by the US Supreme court, or as you succinctly put it, the loony right.
It's sort of a triad now. The islamofascists, gun grabbers, and drug warriors each pursue their own 'death to America.'
The point is, we need to win this one despite the bureaucrats, in an "in your face" manner, to make sure the bureaucrats and fellow travelers know that Civil Servant is not "Civil Master".
Bob Heinlein would smile. If we can't win that one,
I guess I would argue this point. In my mind there is a hugh market for new machine guns. Unfortunately congress in their attempts to destroy the constitution, have made it illegal for citizens to own "new" machine guns, old ones pre-1986 are OK, later ones are not.
All those who have the power and mandate to hinder your ownership and possession of such weapons, are not restricted in any way as to their use, and possession, as you the citizen are, but I guess in reality their ownership is also restricted.
IOW's government is not restricted in it's ownership, but you the citizen are, and yet, it seems to me the individual right enumerated in the Bill of Rights, vis-a-vis the second amendment, though challenged by many, has never been denied, except when government steps in to do so.
IMHO, when facing it's own citizens, the government has a mandate to be undergunned, and when facing the enemies of it's citizens, just the opposite applies. At present, the opposite seems to be the standard, where the citizens are concerned. Hence...
Congress has done it already, in the case of certain guns so the court doesn't have to.
Just another nail in the coffin.
What is the logic behind applying the interstate commerce clause? Seems like a majority of federal overreaching comes from misapplying this.
DustyMoment wrote:
Not sure I'm making that connection.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The connection was explained here:
FR Poll Thread: Does the Interstate Commerce Clause authorize prohibition of drugs and firearms?
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1515174/posts
--- Not that a lot of those here 'got it'.
Proposed: Ammendment XXVIII; 1.The commerce clause and general welfare clauses are hereby stricken from the Constitution. 2. All laws, regulations, government bodies, commissions and entities relying in whole or in part on these striken clauses are here null and void and rescinded.
Chickens meet Roost ping.
You have to understand the tortured logic of Raich. Because this guy built his own machine gun, he won't have to buy one (even a legal pre-ban version). Therefore, interstate commerce is affected, and the Commerce Clause applied.
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner.
You are correct. There's nothing wrong with the Commerce Clause -- it's working exactly how it was intended. What's wrong is a Congress that wants to use it to regulate everything from the minimum wage to spousal abuse.
Fortunately, we the people have control over that -- every two years we elect the people who write these laws. We can simply elect those who will write the laws the way we want them. (By "we" I mean "we the majority", whoever that is. It may not be "us" if you get my drift).
Those who want and expect five activist justices on the U.S. Supreme Court to do their work for them are acting like helpless juveniles. Get out the vote and throw out the lawmakers that are writing this overreaching legislation. Now, that may be a little more work than sitting at a keyboard typing "But that's unconstitutional" every time a new law is passed, but that is the way to solve the problem.
Great idea.
Amen.
>>SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A recent Supreme Court ruling that Congress can ban homegrown marijuana for medical use in California led Friday to the reinstatement of an Arizona man's overturned conviction for having homemade machine guns.<<
Well sure - if the interstate commerce clause give the federal government over personal issues even when there is no interstate commerce it would apply to lots of things.... and be nutty.
Congress (via the FAA) regulates the interstate airlines -- cruising altitudes, speeds, air corridors, landing patterns, etc. Are you saying they may not regulate the purely intrastate flight of a private pilot when his flying has a substantial effect on the interstate commerce Congress is regulating?
The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. That's it. If a local activity has a substantial effect on the interstate commerce that Congress is currently regulating, then Congress has the power, under the Necessary and Proper Clause to write legislation controlling that activity. Without that ability, states or individuals could undermine and subvert Congress' authority. Why even give Congress the power?
The Commerce Clause was meant to be powerful. The problem lies with a Congress abusing that power. The solution is for the people to send a message to Congress that we will not tolerate these intrusions.
The solution is for the people to send a message to Congress that we will not tolerate these intrusions.
And that message would be what ?
Now it's back to business as usual for the Court, IOW further stripping away the protections of our liberties that the authors designed into our Constitution.
Justice Stevens wrote for the majority, "Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity ... if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity."
Justice Scalia wrote in his concurrence, "... the commerce power permits Congress ... to facilitate interstate commerce by eliminating potential obstructions, and to restrict it by eliminating potential stimulants."
We will vote for your opponent in the next election because he more truly represents our interests.
Given this sort of ruling, I'd like to know exactly what sort of act or product does not, in some tortuous way, effect interstat commerce...
For instance, I suppose that having a "homemade machine gun" effects interstate commerce by not having to buy an illegal machinegun from out of state.
And having homegrown pot depresses the economy of another state, or even another country, like Mexico, since you don't have to buy the pot from out of state...
Mark
That IS the "logic." The Constitution is a set of rules that strictly defines what the government is and is not allowed to do. The overly broad interpretation of the ICC allows the federal government to intervene in areas of life where the Consitution doesn't allow the federal government to do so. It's sort of like "a living Constitution," where the Constitution means what ever the person interpreting it wants it to mean: And they've got the deadly force to back up that meaning.
Mark
Wordy prose, to be sure, but no different from what I said.
Ready for the big one? California can ban all guns if they so chose. There's nothing in the state constitution (one of six states, I believe) about the right to keep and bear arms.
129 posted on 11/20/2003 1:30 PM PST by robertpaulsen
Lets hear it for majority rule democracy!! --- As advocated by robertpaulsen!!!
-- Its working just as intended, -- to take away your rights...
Probably everything does. But that's beside the point.
What's at issue are those intrastate acts or products that a) substantially affect the interstate commerce that Congress b) is currently regulating.
Congress is controlling these intrastate acts or products using the power of the Necessary and Proper Clause in conjunction with the Commerce Clause. The Necessary and Proper Clause cannot be used standalone -- it must be used in conjunction with another power.
The Necessary and Proper Clause (listed at the end of Congress' other powers) gives Congress the power to write laws that are both necessary and proper "for carrying into execution the foregoing powers". Without this, Congress would not be able to stop states or individuals from undermining and subverting their interstate efforts.
Even if one grants the legitimacy of the "substantial effects" clause (which I think is a crock), there is no way that someone's backyard pot plant or homemade machine gun can have "substantial effects" on interstate commerce. The justices so holding are being intellectually dishonest.
The federal government simply has no legitimate authority to regulate such matters. These sorts of things were wisely left to the states to regulate, and there frankly is nothing stopping the states from doing so.
The other option is to amend the constitution to authorize the federal government to do so. But the current dishonest method of simply inventing authority out of whole cloth tends to undermine the legitimacy of our government.
Well, I don't see where the Commerce Clause says, "Congress may regulate commerce among the several states except in the following areas:".
I defy anyone to show me how the Commerce Clause cannot be invoked for absolutely anything, given this ruling.
Our Republic has, in fact, died.
Congress is controlling these intrastate acts or products using the power of the Necessary and Proper Clause in conjunction with the Commerce Clause. The Necessary and Proper Clause cannot be used standalone -- it must be used in conjunction with another power.
The Necessary and Proper Clause (listed at the end of Congress' other powers) gives Congress the power to write laws that are both necessary and proper "for carrying into execution the foregoing powers". Without this, Congress would not be able to stop states or individuals from undermining and subverting their interstate efforts.
Except it's all defined so subjectively that it's cumulatively meaningless. Bob Stewart couldn't build enough rifles to have a "substantial effect" on the interstate commerce in firearms. You've said it yourself - it's a tactic, not an objective.
And thusly, the FedGuv can now regulate and interfere with and dictate anything whatsoever.
And you're cool with that.
Isn't there a nice Soviet-Union-type country you could go to so you could pursue your Central Planning dreams without whining from freedom lovers like me?
We delegated the power to Congress (via the FAA) to regulate air traffic. We did not grant them the power to prohibit flying.
The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. That's it.
Exactly. They are not granted the power to prohibit commerce.
If a local activity has a substantial effect on the interstate commerce that Congress is currently regulating, then Congress has the power, under the Necessary and Proper Clause to write legislation controlling that activity.
And under the due process clause, the legislation must not unreasonably deprive people of life, liberty, or property.
Without that ability, states or individuals could undermine and subvert Congress' authority. Why even give Congress the power?
Read the preamble on why we give government power, paulsen. Pay particular attention to "securing the Blessings of Liberty".
The Commerce Clause was meant to be powerful.
But only under Constitutional restraints.
The problem lies with a Congress abusing that power.
Yet you advocate such abuses by supporting prohibitions.
The solution is for the people to send a message to Congress that we will not tolerate these intrusions.
Which is hardly accomplished by your toleration of their prohibitionary abuses.
Yup. It's dead, Jim.
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.