So, at this point, what IS NOT interstate commerce?

[PITTM]

after reading the supreme court's majority decision in the medical marijuana case i am completely confused how they came to the conclusion that growing a plant and selling it to a patient in the same state could possibly be construed as "INTERSTATE commerce". seriously, was this the best "reason" they could come up with to block medical marijuana? ouch, for a group with that much education and experience that is pretty dissapointing. hopefully more ignoring of the constitution is soon to come...

rj

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
after reading the supreme court's majority decision in the medical marijuana case i am completely confused how they came to the conclusion that growing a plant and selling it to a patient in the same state could possibly be construed as "INTERSTATE commerce". seriously, was this the best "reason" they could come up with to block medical marijuana? ouch, for a group with that much education and experience that is pretty dissapointing. hopefully more ignoring of the constitution is soon to come...

rj

[/ QUOTE ]

The decision followed precedent. The real question is should the precedent be overturned.

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
after reading the supreme court's majority decision in the medical marijuana case i am completely confused how they came to the conclusion that growing a plant and selling it to a patient in the same state could possibly be construed as "INTERSTATE commerce". seriously, was this the best "reason" they could come up with to block medical marijuana? ouch, for a group with that much education and experience that is pretty dissapointing. hopefully more ignoring of the constitution is soon to come...

rj

[/ QUOTE ]

You didn't read their opinion carefully enough. They did not rule that growing marijuana for personal medicinal use constituted interstate commerce. They ruled that growing marijuana and selling it to someone in the same state could substantially affect interstate commerce.

Also, I seriously doubt that either the majority's or the dissent's opinion was based on their personal preferences about the legality of medicinal marijuana. This decision is more about the relationship between state and federal governments than drug policy.

[PITTM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
after reading the supreme court's majority decision in the medical marijuana case i am completely confused how they came to the conclusion that growing a plant and selling it to a patient in the same state could possibly be construed as "INTERSTATE commerce". seriously, was this the best "reason" they could come up with to block medical marijuana? ouch, for a group with that much education and experience that is pretty dissapointing. hopefully more ignoring of the constitution is soon to come...

rj

[/ QUOTE ]

You didn't read their opinion carefully enough. They did not rule that growing marijuana for personal medicinal use constituted interstate commerce. They ruled that growing marijuana and selling it to someone in the same state could substantially affect interstate commerce.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is exactly my point! they have decided that a certified grower in california can't sell medical marijuana because it substantially effects interstate commerce, but what doesnt effect interstate commerce? does the federal government now implicitly have the right to regulate ANY product sold under the assumption that it has an effect on interstate commerce? i am hard pressed to find a less logical argument, but that seems to be the norm at the federal level nowadays.

rj

[Felix_Nietsche]

....Judicial Branch on behalf of the the federal govt.

Suppose a teenager 'eggs' a car his crime should be a federal crime rather than a state crime? Here is the reasoning according to those six brain dead Justices (et tu Scalia? Say it ain't so!).

1. When a teenager eggs a car it causes insurance rates to go up.
2. Since most insurance companies operate in multiple states, insurance rates go up in all those states.
3. Since the egging of that car affects 'interstate commerce', then if the teenager is caught must be tried in a federal court rather than a state court.

The 10th amendment is dead. I wonder if recreational pot smokers will praise Clarence Thomas for siding with the medical marijuana side (state's rights).

Did you notice that the majority against state's rights (Medical Marijuana) were LIBERAL JUDGES (except Scalia) appoints PRIMARILY by DEMOCRATS (except Souter). Did you notice all three of the judges for state rights (Medical Marijuana) were appointed by REPUBLICANS.

If you want more freedom (economic and financial) then you need to vote for REPUBLICAN presidents that will appoint Originalist Judges. Occasionally an originalist judge will stray (Scalia) but hopefully there will be enough 'Clarence Thomas's to uphold the 10th amendment and more freedom.

[vulturesrow]

Im with you in that I totally disagree with the outcome. But this case is a great illustration of the whole what is an activist judge etc. hooey. The majority opinion followed judicial precedent. In other words, the "liberal" judges did the conservative thing and didnt overturn precedent! Hence SCalia's concurring opinion, only his opinion was based on 'necessary and proper' reasoning. AGain, I am not happy with this decision. That being said, I find it an interesting data point in the whole debate over activist judges, etc.

[lehighguy]

The original precedent, established during the great depression over a case involving a government imposed price control on wheat, has been used to justify nearly every change in government since then. It has been used to justify income taxes, the FDA, business regulations of all sorts, anything.

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
Did you notice that the majority against state's rights (Medical Marijuana) were LIBERAL JUDGES (except Scalia) appoints PRIMARILY by DEMOCRATS (except Souter). Did you notice all three of the judges for state rights (Medical Marijuana) were appointed by REPUBLICANS.

If you want more freedom (economic and financial) then you need to vote for REPUBLICAN presidents that will appoint Originalist Judges. Occasionally an originalist judge will stray (Scalia) but hopefully there will be enough 'Clarence Thomas's to uphold the 10th amendment and more freedom.


[/ QUOTE ]

Originalist interpretaion is a double-edged sword that does not always lead to greater freedom. If the federal government is the entity doing the restricting, then the originalist interpretation will usually lead to greater freedom. However, the state governments also do their own fair share of restricting freedom. State anti-sodomy laws, segregation laws, anti-miscegenation laws, etc. are some of the many examples of laws that an originalist interpretation would uphold.

I am not saying that an originalist interpretation is right or wrong; I am saying that there is not always a correlation between originalist interpretation and greater freedom. For example, imagine if the tables were turned in the marijuana case. What if CA was trying to prosecute someone for medicinal marijuana use and the federal government had passed a law, under the commerce clause, that mandated the decriminalization of all marijuana use? I can almost guarantee that Rehnquist, Thomas, and O'Connor would be on the side of the opinion upholding the CA law banning marijuana use and striking down the federal law.

Furthermore, to suggest that voting Republican is the path to greater freedom is also specious. When it comes to paying taxes you will probably be right. But when it comes to watching sexually explicit material on TV, smoking pot, and not having the government tap your phone line, voting Republican is not your best bet.

Edit: I just noticed that you limited your first reference to freedom to economic and financial. But then in the last sentence you use the word freedom without qualification. So which is it?

[Felix_Nietsche]

"If the federal government is the entity doing the restricting, then the originalist interpretation will usually lead to greater freedom. However, the state governments also do their own fair share of restricting freedom."
************************************************** *
Touche'.
There are lots of state laws that unfairly restrict freedom. The difference is to overturn an UNJUST state law you only have to persuade the voters in your state. To overturn an UNJUST federal law you have to deal with persuading voters in 50 states! I think we can agree it is easier to change state laws than to change a federal law. If you want to make reduce injustice the easiest path is through your state govt....not the federal govt.


"Furthermore, to suggest that voting Republican is the path to greater freedom is also specious. When it comes to paying taxes you will probably be right. But when it comes to watching sexually explicit material on TV, smoking pot, and not having the government tap your phone line, voting Republican is not your best bet."
************************************************** ***
My opinion is:
1. As federal govt power increases, the power of states govt decreases.
2. As state govt power increases, the power of the federal govt decreases.
3. More individual freedom will occur when the STATEs have more power.
4. Republican appointed judges are MORE LIKELY (not always!) to uphold state's rights than Democrat appointed judges.

If you accept the premises for #3 and #4 then the conclusion is more freedom will occur with Republican appointed judges.

One great fear of many Democrats is if the court comes under originalist judges then Roe v Wade (abortion) will be overturned and be outlawed. What will happen if Roe v Wade is overturned is abortion will be decided on a state by state basis. Therefore, if you want an abortion and your state outlaws abortion you simply drive to another state and get the procedure done.


"I just noticed that you limited your first reference to freedom to economic and financial. But then in the last sentence you use the word freedom without qualification. So which is it?"
**********************************************
I usually break down freedom to two categories:
1. Economic freedom
2. Social freedom
In general Republicans are seen as greater proponents of economic freedom and Democrats are seen as greater proponents of social freedom. There is some truth to these stereotypes ...BUT... the ruling of this court on medical marijuana showed that the liberal judges are more proponents of federal power than social freedom. My opinion is that Democrats are over-rated with regard to supporting social freedom. Don't get me wrong there are lots of idiot Republican judges who reduce our freedoms but there are more idiot liberal judges who restrict are freedom even more.

[PITTM]

man i wish california could become an independant nation /images/graemlins/grin.gif

rj

[fluxrad]

http://web.utk.edu/~scheb/thomas.jpg

"Somebody put a pubic hair on my copy of the 10th amendment!"

[CORed]

Lemonade stand.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
I just noticed that you limited your first reference to freedom to economic and financial. But then in the last sentence you use the word freedom without qualification. So which is it?

[/ QUOTE ]

You realize they are indistinguishible right?

natedogg

[CripAces]

I can see it now "Like one nation under Dude with ......" /images/graemlins/grin.gif