Federalism, Up in Smoke?

NRO ^ | June 07, 2005 | Jonathan H. Adler

[NutCrackerBoy]

After a few years of pushback on federal legislation that very specifically tries to regulate state stuff, SCOTUS starts rewarding overreaching federal regulation as long as it is sweeping in the way it is justified, interstate commerce-wise.

What message does that send?

[clee1]

Federalism died along time ago.

This Nation has been on the downward slide for a long time, and the end is in sight.

[rdb3]

This case was hopelessly dreadlocked for years.

Jah, bashy mon! Dat's a funny, a true. Me a go toke now.

[nonsporting]

You're not alone. O'Connor regained some sanity. Scalia lost his. Kennedy is out to lunch as usual.

That pretty well sums it up for me, too.

So, why did we need an 18th Amendment prohibiting "intoxicating liquors" which must surely have some effect on interstate commerce, given the majority's line of reasoning? (And the 22nd Amendment repealing the 18th was also unnecessary, no?)

[neverdem]

The War on Drugs and Gun Control

Connecting the War on Guns & Drugs

The war on guns

Thank you for the reminder! This is also why we don't want a Second Amendment case before this SCOTUS.

[tahiti]

"Such a regulation, she argued, was not a valid exercise of the federal commerce power."

Why did she argue this case as a commerce power issue?

Why did she not argue you the case as an Amendment IX right?

What a coincidence that it was 40 years ago today that the Supreme Court struck down a state law prohibiting the use of a contraceptive by a woman, a consenting opinion cited Amendment IX as the constitutional basis for the nullification.

What is the difference between a chemical for contraception or for pain? It is a personal, fundamental right and decision, "retained by the people," for free people to make for themselves, not for their government to make for them.

Yes, maybe it can be "regulated" for safety reasons, but it can not be "prohibited."

Remember it took a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, why does it not take a constitutional amendment to ban marijuana?

The commerce clause power cannot violate the Bill of Rights, otherwise Congress could "regulate" the content of newspapers, which Amendment I clearly prohibits.

I cannot wait for Judges Owens and Rogers-Clark to start on the federal bench to start the reversal of these current decisions repugnant and at odds with the clear textual language of the constitution protecting our rights.

[LibertarianInExile]

Well, the 18th Amendment was because...well, you know...because...

Freepatriot32's Libertarian Ping List

[El Conservador]

[Kozak]

Can someone explain to me how a substance grown, transported, and consumed entirely within the borders of the State of California is a Federal matter?

Because our Masters, The Supreme Court say so.
I'm really disgusted with Scalia. He doesn't deserve to be the chief justice.

[FreeKeys]

Notice that all 3 dissenting justices were appointed by Republicans while both Clinton appointees concurred with the majority.

"If you support the war on drugs in its present form, then you're only paying lip-service to the defense of freedom, and you don't really grasp the concept of the sovereign individual human being."   and (on the "Cutie-Pie & Holmes" show):"Sean, you're afraid of freedom!"
"I told Bob Barr right here on the air that if I had a sick and dying loved one, and he stood in the way of my bringing some medical marijuana to her to relieve her pain, that I would personally kick his ass.  I don't know of anyone else who ever said that on the air to a prominent politician before." -- Neal Boortz, HERE

[B4Ranch]

Because the Feds say it is! Now quit picking on them.

[B4Ranch]

Make sure your painters don't smoke while they work!

[PGalt]

Thanks for the post. Interesting.

[B4Ranch]

>>But some of the sick people were using reefers.<<

Others used ice.

[Wolfie]

Whatever your opinion on this particular case, one thing is clear. The SC just gave full permission to Congress to open up a great big can of whoop-ass on the States.

[jammer]

Honestly, haven't you seen these "alleged conservatives", some of them extremely prominent here, jettison their principles right and left the last four years? Perhaps I'm more cynical than you, but my only surprise is that there aren't more.

[thoughtomator]

Yes I have consistently seen them oppose the mission statement of this site. I wouldn't use the word "jettison" because any claim most of them had to being constitutionalist in the first place was dubious at best.

[ExcelJockey]

Must agree. Thomas shows himself again as the shining light of this current court. Scalia allowed his personal distaste for the consumption of cannabis to sway his decision. He knew this decision stank, thus the separate opinion, which was bunch of crap, but more legally obtuse self-justifying crap than the frankly scary majority opinion.

[Red Sea Swimmer]

Looks like "Happy Air's" Flagship Aircraft.

Did Ken Kesey paint it ?

[LibertarianInExile]

"Why did she argue this case as a commerce power issue?
Why did she not argue you the case as an Amendment IX right?"

Silly tahiti, there is no such thing as the Ninth Amendment. All power is delegated to the federal government now, donchaknow. It's just a matter of how much it lets the states have! God forbid the states have any powers or rights--that'd be silly in a federalist system like ours. Oops, did I say federalist? I mean unitary!