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 ...
Yes it is ... except when it substantially affects some interstate commerce that Congress is constitutionally regulating.
That depends on who "we" are. If "we" are career beltway bureaucrats, then "we" get more money, power, and toys.
Article and section? Penumbras and emanations, built on an uproven premise that the regulation itself is a valid exercise in regulating interstate commerce as self-evident truth.
As Inspector Clouseau said in response to "But that's a priceless Steinway" -- "Not anymore."
We have many rights. Society chooses to protect only a relatively few.
Belied by the simple words above, paulsen. Your duplicity is unequaled on FR.
Some of those rights society chooses to protect are found in the BOR. Some are found in state constitutions. But if they ain't there, they ain't protected.
Absolute bull.
Now, you can scream and cry and deny and say they should be protected and they must be protected and it's unconstitutional if they're not protected. But if they're not protected in either the state or federal constitution, you, sir, are SOL.
You sir, are an anti-constitutional oaf.
-- Its working just as intended, -- to take away your rights...
Majority Rule == Mob rule. If majority rule were "the law," then the US would still be a British colony, slavery wouldn't have been abolished, and the list goes on and on.
Majority Rule: Where two wolves and a sheep vote on "what's for dinner."
Mark
As Inspector Clouseau said in response to "But that's a priceless Steinway" -- "Not anymore."
Typically paulsen, -- unable to make a rational rebutal, he refers to an inane movie scene.
What's next bob, more on the "aroma of old sweat like fried chicken"?
It makes me sad that the statists destroyed the commerce clause to create their failed war on some drugs.
Pot that is grown at home and is not sold is not interstate commerce.
That's true. They do. And they are off-limits to the federal government unless the activity, taken collectively, has a substantial effect on the interstate commerce that Congress is regulating.
Let's take your family with the apple tree example. If we substitute wheat for apples, we have the landmark case that started this whole thing, Wickard v Filburn.
In the 1930's, there was a glut of wheat on the world market. Prices were depressed, and American farmers were filing for bankruptcy. The government's solution was the Agricultural Adjustment Act which limited wheat production but guaranteed the farmers a higher per bushel price. Wickard was the Secretary of Agriculture.
Filburn was an Ohio wheat farmer allotted 11 acres -- he planted, however, 23 acres, selling 11 to market at the government-sponsored price (which was 3X world market price) and keeping 12 for his livestock, for seed, and for his family's use. He was allowed to do this, but that required him to either store it or pay a "penalty" of 49 cents per bushel. He refused, saying that Congress did not have the power to regulate his own personal use.
Sound familiar?
The U.S. Supremne Court ruled that Congress did have the power saying, "That appellee's own contribution to the demand for wheat may be trivial by itself is not enough to remove him from the scope of federal regulation where, as here, his contribution, taken together with that of many others similarly situated, is far from trivial. But even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce ...".
Ah. So you're against public referendums.
Rather than allowing the citizens to vote if they want their property taxes raised 2% to fund a new high school, we just just let the city council decide that. Can't have "mob rule".
Correct.
This begs the question. Remember that before the amendment re-legalizing alcohol at the federal level, an amendment was passed to authorize the federal government to regulate alcohol.
If it is true that the authority to regulate such things is inherent to the federal government, why was this step taken?
Keep in mind that I am not arguing that recreational drugs be legalized; rather, I am arguing that we ought to proceed in an orginalist manner. Every time we stray from that course, it comes back to bite us in other areas.
Remember, too, the case that started the "substantial effects" test: Wickard v. Filburn, which was an explicitly fascist/socialist New Deal decision, allowing the government to set quotas for farmers' crops. From an orginalist perspective, such a thing is unthinkable. It is frankly offensive to the intentions of the Founding Fathers that this abomination of a decision is still being used as precedent today. I look forward to the day when it is tossed on to the ash heap of history.
I agree with Justice Thomas in this area, as he wrote in his concurrence in U.S. v. Morrison:
The majority opinion correctly applies our decision in United States v. Lopez (1995), and I join it in full. I write separately only to express my view that the very notion of a "substantial effects" test under the Commerce Clause is inconsistent with the original understanding of Congress' powers and with this Court's early Commerce Clause cases. By continuing to apply this rootless and malleable standard, however circumscribed, the Court has encouraged the Federal Government to persist in its view that the Commerce Clause has virtually no limits. Until this Court replaces its existing Commerce Clause jurisprudence with a standard more consistent with the original understanding, we will continue to see Congress appropriating state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce.
"The government's solution", the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which limited wheat production, was an unconstitutional violation of the 10th Amendment.
There is no delegated power to "limit production" inherent in the commerce clause, or anywhere else in our Constitution.
Congress and the USSC are wrong, and you are 'begging that question' by making a circular argument that they can simply declare that the "-- power to regulate commerce among the several states --" includes the power to limit production.
Get a grip on reality paulsen.
An amendment was desired, not required.
"An amendment to the Constitution obviously appealed to temperance reformers more than a federal statute banning liquor. A simple congressional majority could adopt a statute but, with the shift of a relatively few votes, could likewise topple one. Drys feared that an ordinary law would be in constant danger of being overturned owing to pressure from liquor industry interests or the growing population of liquor-using immigrants. A constitutional amendment, on the other hand, though more difficult to achieve, would be impervious to change. Their reform would not only have been adopted, the Anti-Saloon League reasoned, but would be protected from future human weakness and backsliding."
Section 1 of the 21st amendment repealed the 18th -- that set everything back to where it started. Section 2 then removed the power to regulate alcohol from the federal government and turned that power over to the states exclusively. The same would have to be done with drugs.
"Remember, too, the case that started the "substantial effects" test: Wickard v. Filburn, which was an explicitly fascist/socialist New Deal decision, allowing the government to set quotas for farmers' crops."
A fascist/socialist New Deal decision to set quotas and fix prices might be a bad economic decision, but that doesn't make it unconstitutional. It is not up to the U.S. Supreme Court to dictate economic policy to the Congress, either directly or indirectly via a ruling. Are you more comfortable with a judicial oligarchy?
"I agree with Justice Thomas in this area, as he wrote in his concurrence in U.S. v. Morrison"
Yeah, I read that. That's where he complains that Congress is out of control, that Congress has no limits and that Congress is usurping state police powers.
That little diatribe was in a court decision that bitch-slapped Congress and said VAWA was unconstitutional, right on the heels of another court decision bitch-slapping Congress saying that their Gun-Free Schools Act was unconstitutional.
So much for "runaway Congressional power", huh?
The courts have ruled that "to regulate" includes "to prohibit".
"The Commerce Clause decision in the Raich case protects violent drug gangs, not a legal marijuana market."
I'm speechless.
"It is well established by decisions of this Court that the power to regulate commerce includes the power to regulate the prices at which commodities in that commerce are dealt in and practices affecting such prices. It can hardly be denied that a factor of such volume and variability as home-consumed wheat would have a substantial influence on price and market conditions."
--Wickard v Filburn
This statement is footnoted, the footnote containing references to 15 cases.
A fascist/socialist New Deal decision to set quotas and fix prices might be a bad economic decision, but that doesn't make it unconstitutional.
Defend that socialist line paulsen.. -- You are shameless.
It is not up to the U.S. Supreme Court to dictate economic policy to the Congress, either directly or indirectly via a ruling.
Backwards. Congress was unconstitutionally dictating economic policy to citizens, & the courts job is to defend citizens rights.
Are you more comfortable with a judicial oligarchy?
It's more than evident that you are comfortable with both a judicial oligarchy and a congressional dictatorship.
Congress and the USSC are wrong, and you are 'begging that question' by making a circular argument that they can simply declare that the "-- power to regulate commerce among the several states --" includes the power to limit production.
Get a grip on reality paulsen.
This statement is footnoted, the footnote containing references to 15 cases.
There you go again, defending what you admit is a "--- fascist/socialist New Deal decision to set quotas and fix prices --" by a "judicial oligarchy".
You have no shame sir.
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.