Posted on 10/23/2007 4:09:07 AM PDT by IrishMike
Your no lawyer, but you’re trying to tell me Clarence Thomas is wrong? That’s rich.
The U.S. still has a constitution?
......................................
Just hanging in there !
When did I say Thomas was wrong? I cited Thomas decision in the case I cited as a slap doown of Paul. Read my $%^&ing post before coming back with your &**%ing lawyerly distortion.
You say if he accepts any aspect of it, he has to accept the whole thing, and he obviously doesn’t. Don’t try to weasel your way out of it.
Thomas for the Majority, United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative
Thomas (unlike Ron Paul) concedes Constitutionality of federal regulation of drugs
Clear enough?
If it isn’t “cherry picked” why is it that’s all you have, and why does it contradict his other opinions? It’s clear, all right. Downright transparent, in fact.
But, if you insist on closing one eye and hopping on one leg, no one can stop you from spinning around in circles... so I won't try. Bye!!
thanks for the post, great information.
That’s good. Head for the door.
It most certainly does, and attempts to deny this fact make Clinton's supposed befuddlement at the definition of the word "is" look like a model of candor and logic.
Thank You.
I can not remember who has the “get out of the UN” ping list!
Nonsense. If the arguments made by one side are not legally compelling (i.e. the factual question of medical use), Thomas did not consider it his place to insert a different argument that is legally compelling (i.e. the fact that the law rests upon an invalid perversion of the Interstate Commerce Clause, and thus Congress had no authority to enact it in the first place).
Your "correction" is irrelevant. Thomas recognized that 1)Congress had no authority to enact the law in question, but also that 2)this argument not being before the Court, it was not his place to insert it.
Thus, he had no proper grounds on which to strike down the law, despite the fact that he recognzed its failure to comply with the Constitituional limiations on Congress' powers.
In celebration of the United Nations sixtieth anniversary, the United Nations Department of Public Information organized a commemoration of the signing of the United Nations Charter, which took place in San Francisco on 26 June 1945.
The event started at 9:30 a.m. in the General Assembly Hall on Monday 27 June 2005.
The President of the General Assembly and the Secretary General spoke. Three United Nations tour guides read the Preamble of the Charter and the United Nations Singers performed.
The federal drug case I was referring to, where Thomas ruled in favor of the govt, was NOT Gonzales v. Raich. It was United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative (OCBS). See my post 26 & 45. The Thomas comment on the Commerce Clause, cited by you, was in Raich not OCBS.
In fact, in the OCBS case, writing for the majority, Thomas clearly saw the The Controlled Substance Act to be before the court, since he refers to it in making his ruling in favor of the federal government. So I guess your response is "irrelevant."
But again, for the record, here's the point:
- Thomas rejecting the constitutionality of a federal drug law in one case (Raich) does NOT prove that he thinks ALL federal drug laws are unconstitutional.
- But, Thomas accepting the constitutionality of a federal drug law in one case (OCBS) does prove that he does NOT think all federal drug laws are unconstitutional.
The Constitution doesn’t authorize the 9th Circuit Court to say that marijuana has legitimate medical uses, so therefore federal drug laws are constitutional. That’s just freaking brilliant.
"Because the Controlled Substances Act covers even those who have what could be termed a medical necessity, it precludes consideration of the evidence that the Ninth Circuit deemed relevant."
What world are you in? The ruling never said the " Constitution doesn’t authorize the 9th Circuit", it said "the Controlled Substances Act... precludes...".
But maybe it's my fault for attempting to reason with the Legalize Drug crowd.
"Because the Controlled Substances Act covers even those who have what could be termed a medical necessity, it precludes consideration of the evidence that the Ninth Circuit deemed relevant."
What world are you in? The ruling never said the " Constitution doesn’t authorize the 9th Circuit", it said "the Controlled Substances Act... precludes...".
But maybe it's my fault for attempting to reason with the Legalize Drugs crowd.
The decision was that the Ninth Circuit Court has no authority to determine whether it does or doesn’t have any medical value, was it not?
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.