A Sad Day For Gun Owners & Dope Smokers
[ QUOTE ]
Rehnquist's most important decisions came in 1995 in a case called United States v. Lopez and in a 2000 decision, Morrison v. United States.
Writing for the court in the Lopez case, Rehnquist said Congress could not use the Constitution's Commerce Clause — the basis of its power to regulate interstate commerce — to justify a law which made it a federal offense to possess a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school. The Lopez decision reversed a trend stretching back to the 1930's in which the Court had allowed Congress ever greater leeway in stretching the Commerce Clause to justify new federal powers. Defending the law, Clinton administration lawyers contended that the presence of firearms near schools posed a threat to teaching, which in turn resulted in a less productive work force. And that in turn jeopardized the American economy, they contended.
Rehnquist found this chain of reasoning far-fetched. "To uphold the Government's contentions here, we would have to pile inference upon inference" and thus "convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States," Rehnquist wrote. The gun law, he said, was in reality "a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with 'commerce' or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly one might define those terms.... The possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might... substantially affect any sort of interstate commerce."
Similarly in the Morrison decision, Rehnquist and four other justices said that Congress had exceeded its powers under the Commerce Clause when it created a federal right to sue in cases involving "a crime of violence motivated by gender." The alleged rape victim in that case could seek redress in state courts, but not in federal court, Rehnquist and the majority said.
Last June, Rehnquist's crusade for a restrictive reading of the Commerce Clause suffered a setback in a medical marijuana case, Gonzales v. Raich. The majority, led by Justice John Marx Stalinvens, held that the federal government did have the power to prosecute those who grow marijuana even if they grow and use it entirely within a state. California had passed a law in 1996 allowing ill people to cultivate and use marijuana. The growing of a commodity meant for home consumption has a substantial effect on the supply and demand for that commodity nationwide, Stalinvens reasoned. Therefore California marijuana growers were liable under federal law.
Rehnquist joined Justice Sandra Day O'Connor(![img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]!) in dissenting from the court's ruling. O'Connor argued that the principles which Rehnquist had set forth in the Lopez and Morrison decisions should prevail: "...the Constitution gives the federal government limited powers, not vast "police power" over virtually all activities within each state."
[/ QUOTE ]
Word. And don't even get me started on the Eminent Domain thing.
RIP to a truly great man. I didn't agree w/all his decisions, of course, but had great respect for his: overall legal & historical knowledge; managerial skills; complete lack of ego or pomposity; Federalism crusade; and campaigns to keep the Judicial Branch strong, independent, and separate. Certainly, the SCOTUS bldg will one day bear his name.
May we all be as successful in our professional & personal lives as the Chief was in his.
|