The Commerce Clause, The Federal Judiciary, and Tyranny (or How Scalia Helped Screw America)

self | 10/15/09 | Huck

[Cboldt]

-- What you’re referring to was a preliminary injunction. --

SCOTUS heard Raich on an appellate basis. Raich did not take her case originally yo SCOTUS, which is what is meant by "original jurisdiction."

Contra, Marbury v. Madison, taken directly to SCOTUS, was dismissed by Marshall on the grounds the SCOTUS lacked original subject matter jurisdiction over that type of case, according to the terms of the constitution.

[Mojave]

You can defend the "elastic" interpreation of the commerce clause all you want

There is a massive trade among the states in marijuana, your dishonesty and love of judicial legislation notwithstanding.

[tacticalogic]

You keep on defending the New Deal, and trying to convince everyone it’s “just the pot”. I’ll watch.

[Rockingham]

Here is the text of the case:

http://altlaw.org/v1/cases/383518

Look at paragraph 10, especially.

Getting the facts right, even unpalatable ones, is the essence of conservatism.

[Huck]

I didn’t know that about Mormons.

[Mojave]

You keep on defending the New Deal

Backwards. You're the cheerleader for judicial legislation.

How ya coming with that "registered common carrier" lie, BTW? Will you finally retract it or just play dead until you post it again?

[Zionist Conspirator]

I didn’t know that about Mormons.

They believe both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are Divinely inspired. I don't know about the amendments.

Historically, each nation invests its founding with religious significance and its founders with religious authority. The US came along a little late, but the mormons (and some other Conservatives, apparently) still get in on the game.

This is an interesting discussion, which I'll have to return to later.

[Mojave]

“Competitive practices which are wholly intrastate may be reached by the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1—7, 15 note, because of their injurious effect on interstate commerce. Northern Securities Company v. United States, 193 U.S. 197...”

Hmmm. March 14, 1904.

[Huck]

I sometimes find myself thinking that the founders were divinely inspired, but that may just be due to the fact that after 200 yrs of de-evolution, they SEEM like demigods.

I have to think if the framers were around today, they could find a lot of things to do differently. The best I can do is think for myself and try to think of some changes on my own.

[Lurking Libertarian]

I believe in the case of Raich, the SCOTUS had original jurisdiction, if I am correctly interpreting the Attorney General, who was the defendant, to be a "public consul." It went directly to the Supreme Court. Pot has nothing to do with jurisdiction. It has to do with who or what is a party to the case.

"Public consuls" means foreign diplomats. The Raich case was not within the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction; it was an appeal from the Ninth Circuit decision which was in turn an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

[tacticalogic]

Keep diggin that hole, Roscoe.

[tacticalogic]

Getting the facts right, even unpalatable ones, is the essence of conservatism.

Is it fact that this case in an exercise in expansion of federal power under the New Deal "substantial effects" doctrine?

[Rockingham]

?

[tacticalogic]

Did you not understand the question?

[Rockingham]

Which case are you referring to?

[marsh2]

“Regulate” meant to make regular. As I recall, some aspects of Louisiana statutes are based on Napoleonic law, while the rest of the US is based on common law. To the extent that this affects privileges and immunities of the individual citizen, it is not “regular.” I believe there were also issues about an articulated banking and commercial systems among the various states. Those needed to be “regulated” or made regular so the systems were mutually compatible and goods and services could flow freely.

[Mojave]

Don’t get into trouble while you’re at the library monitor inventing your “facts”.

[Mojave]

You know, the 1904 “New Deal” case.

[tacticalogic]

Which case are you referring to?

Your Wrightwood Dairy case. Is this really a case of the USSC having established historical precendent for the "substantial effects" doctrine precedent before Wickard and the New Deal, or is it essentially concurrent with that decision and involving essentially the same principals?

[tacticalogic]

You know, the 1904 “New Deal” case.

Keep digging Roscoe. Deny there is such a thing as the New Deal Commerce Clause and the "substantial effects doctrine", and keep trying to change the subject. I'll watch while everyone figures out why somebody would try to do that.