Supreme Court Medical Marijuana

[fluxrad]

[ QUOTE ]
From the dissent: If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything--and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.

Freedom in the USA is at the point of being little more than a quaint notion. Anyone who thinks any of our "liberal" leaders are actually in favor of liberty is highly confused. You should have to look no further than the authoritarian leftists on the court. Our liberty is under assault by all sides.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

HOLY [censored]!

I actually agree with natedogg. Seriously, someone take a screen capture for posterity.

The reason no one blames the federal legislature for this attempted usurpation of powers is because thats what power wants...more power. I blame SCOTUS because they, in this instance, have failed to do what they are charged with in the constitution; that is to say they have failed to uphold amendments 9 and 10.

[Jakesta]

You do realize that if you stand up for amendments 9 and 10, that you must also be opposed to all of the socialist programs at the federal level(like Social Security, Medicare, and WIC), in order to be consistent.

[fluxrad]

[ QUOTE ]
You do realize that if you stand up for amendments 9 and 10, that you must also be opposed to all of the socialist programs at the federal level(like Social Security, Medicare, and WIC), in order to be consistent.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF are you talking about?

Article I, Secion 8.

[Jakesta]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You do realize that if you stand up for amendments 9 and 10, that you must also be opposed to all of the socialist programs at the federal level(like Social Security, Medicare, and WIC), in order to be consistent.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF are you talking about?

Article I, Secion 8.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you sound like a Libertarian. Only things that are enumerated in A1,S8 are constitutional, blah blah blah. Except you don't think this way, because I've read your other posts in the politics forum and you are a liberal.

[fluxrad]

Read the last 5 posts in order.

Seriously, Dead. You've completely strayed from the fucking herd.

[Cyrus]

It'll help ya relax.

[BadBoyBenny]

The Supreme Court was pretty much sticking to precedent on this one, and I don't see why this should be surprising to most people.

See Wickard v. Filburn and to a lesser extent Gibbens V. Ogden. I think most justices didn't see a reason to change the longstanding tradition of a broad interpretation of the commerce clause.

I am sort of with you in thinking that this is not what the framers really wanted, and the logical arguements are weak, but I don't think the could have ruled for the states in this one without overturning Wickard. It may be beneficial for people on both sides (myself included) to read some of the arguements from that case and figure out how the heck they sided against the farmer.

To the OP…

We know Kennedy was in the majority and O’Connor was in the minority since that’s who wrote the opinion and dissent.

[vulturesrow]

Piece on this issue by NRO's Johnathan Adler.

Federalism, Up in Smoke?

...Raich prevailed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Supreme Court ruled against her Monday, however, and upheld federal bans of marijuana possession and cultivation for personal medicinal use. In a majority opinion authored by Justice John Paul Stevens, and joined by Justices Souter, Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Breyer, the Court held that the Constitution’s “commerce clause” authorizes federal regulation of such conduct under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Justice Antonin Scalia also concurred in the result. Only Justices O’Connor, Thomas, and Chief Justice Rehnquist dissented. Few expected the Court to rule differently. The question now is whether Gonzales v. Raich means the federalism doctrine of enumerated powers has gone up in smoke.

[kt421]

Agreed. This decision was a foregone conclusion. The precedent is fairly solid and the Commerce Clause very widely interpreted.

As a cannabis activist, I'm disappointed in the ruling because a victory would have been huge. On the other hand, one's disgust with the idea of prosecuting critically and chronically ill Americans because they use a safe and effective medicine should be reserved for Congress and the Bush administration. In that vein, Congress will soon vote on an amendment which would bar the federal government from spending money prosecuting legal medpot users. Lobby to get this passed and tell your elected representative to stop wasting your tax money going after sick people.

What I find appalling is the hysteria and misinformation propogated by the Drug Czar and Drug Free America fools - even in victory they manage to be repulsive. Walters says the decision shows that smoked cannabis is not medicine, ignoring wholly that 7 Americans still get pre-rolled joints from the US government for medical use, that Canada has some 800 legal medical pot users and that Holland is handing out the "crude plant" in pharmacies. That they need to keep lying, even in victory, says a lot about the shallowness of their stance.

[lehighguy]

O M F G

I'm buying my own pacific island if I get rich enough. [censored] this [censored].