Asscroft at it again

butting his nose into places the Feds don't belong...


Can any of you lawyer types explain how the federal gov't is able to regulate marijuana that is grown and sold in California?


FWIW, I don't personally smoke the wacky tobaccy.

"In May, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative that federal anti-drug laws do not permit an exception for these types of marijuana uses."


This is from the web site you mentioned. Federal law prohibiting marijuana applies. There is no excpetion for these clubs in federal law.


Not to say that I support that, but it is the current status.

I didn't check out the link you provided, but I will later. I know a little about the issue though, as I have followed it before and saw another story on it a day or so ago. The feds regulate all kinds of drugs. They get jurisdiction based on general concepts of interstate commerce. The idea of what affects interstate commerce has been construed in extremely liberal (broad) ways. This trend started in the 1930's and continued. As a result, congress has passed all kinds of laws that make things crimes. These laws affect sports betting, drugs, guns, all kinds of stuff. Usually nobody complains. Usually the laws are found to be constitutional. However, the feds have butted in to all kinds of things that might be considered issues for particular states to decide.


The thing in California exposes the problem, particularly to those who never complained about sports betting bans, gun-free school zones and the like. The feds have laws on marijuana. California has no power to override federal law. The feds can either enforce federal law or not. The law is constitutional. (I believe the Supreme Court decided the marijuana clinic issue last year. And this Court is the only one in recent history that has tossed a statute on the basis that congress did not have the constitutional authority to regulate something based on interstate commerce.) California medical marijuana smokers are screwed. The remedy is either to change all the drug laws, federal and state or to hope the feds don't enforce the law. You can only depend on the first possibility, and that will be an uphill battle. I think Ashcroft is a lousy AG, but I think a democrat AG would probably do the same thing. There is no way the DOJ can ignore the federal drug laws at this point. But a change in the political climate could produce lasting changes.

I'm aware of the Supreme court ruling re: the cannabis clubs. I was just curious about the rationale of how the Interstate Commerce clause applies. Even in the Gun Free School Zones issue I think an argument, however tenuous, was made that since gun parts are manufactured in various states and guns are shipped across state lines that the Commerce Clause applied.


At the end of the day I guess it doesn't really matter what the rationale is.

did ashcroft lose to a dead man???

You're right. I almost forgot.

There is no good way to explain the interpretation of the interstate commerce clause from 1937 on. Basically, a succession of politically desirable laws were passed by congress. The Supreme Court kept getting 5 votes to uphold them. Along the way legal analysis was put into opinions that got 5 supporting votes. Many of the opinions don't make sense. I can't explain them. I think the Supreme Court changed the constitutional balancing of powers dramatically and irreparably without any real foundation. This is one area where the Constitutional Amendment allowing the direct election of senators probably had an effect. A senate properly elected by the state legislatures would not have passed a lot of the legislation which was upheld.


Also, FWIW, I think the Court cheapened a lot of the civil rights laws by upholding them on the basis of the interstate commerce clause. Some may argue that using the commerce clause to support these laws was great, but I think they could have found authority for these laws elsewhere in the Constitution.

Actually, the portion of the Gun Free School Zones Act that was ruled on by the Supreme Court in 1994 (or 95) was _not_ upheld. The Court said the law, as enacted, exceeded Congress' authority to regulate interstate commerce. It was the first time since 1937 that the Supreme Court had held a law based on the regulation of interstate commerce unconstitutional.


I think I could do a passable job of reiterating the analysis, but I think this is more telling. Two of the factors from the majority were 1) the statute had no congressional findings of fact stating possession of guns in school zones has a substantial effect on interstate commerce; and 2) the wording of the statute itself had no "hook" that made sure the law was applied only to possesion of certain guns that had moved in or otherwise affected interstate commerce. Before the case with the law, as enacted, was even heard by the Supreme Court, Congress amended it to include both 1 and 2.

what is a gun free zone. i mean, if you live right next to the school, does that mean you cant store any guns in your house?


brad

I think there are some exceptions (like living next door) but I don't remember. I would have to look at the statute. (You can look it up too, I think most federal gun laws are in 18 USC in approx. the 900's - i.e. 18 USC 915 or whatever.) But I'm not totally sure on the gun free school zone thing. Clear violation of 2d Amendment and interstate commerce power. As Matt Loftus pointed out, this Court was the first since 1937 that ever curtailed congressional power on that basis. But the commerce clause is still given a ridiculously broad interpretation. And don't expect to win any cases saying the statute violates the 2d Amd. or commerce clause. I'm a conservative nut and nobody agrees with me except maybe Scalia and Thomas.

Here's a link to the statute outlining gun free school zones. If the link doesn't work (I had some trouble with it)look up Findlaw on the net, go to U.S. Codes and search for 18 USC 922. You will have to sort through a whole bunch of crap in the statute to find it. It is down in subsection (q), but the whole atatute is a mass of letters and numbers and muck. Hey, congress wrote it not me.


One interesting thing is that state licensees may be exempt. What if you live in a state that lets you pack a weapon concealed and doesn't require a license? (Vermont) You are screwed is the answer. The law should be ruled unconstitutional. It won't be.


Good Twain quotation.