Quote:
|
Originally Posted by meembo
Federal law supercedes state law in regards to commerce that can be conducted over state lines. Though this doesn't happen very often with medical marijuana, it is a legitimate application of federal law, which is much more strict about controlled substances in general than the handful of states which have legalized the use of medical marijuana.
|
Conn. obviously feels that there are social norms and cultural ideals that are more conservative than out in California, so they reflect the will of the people by making the laws more strict. That is exactly the freedom of governing the SC decided to strip away from the states.
Quote:
A quick quote from the NYT on June 7 -- "The appeals court had held that Congress lacked constitutional authority to regulate the noncommercial cultivation and use of marijuana that did not cross state lines.
But "the regulation is squarely within Congress's commerce power," Justice John Paul Stevens said for the majority on Monday. He added that the court's precedents interpreting Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution had clearly established "Congress's power to regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic 'class of activities' that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce."
|
It seems to be a pretty big liberty to take using Commerce authority that could now be applied to anything. It seems clear the intent of the constitution is to allow states to govern within their borders and Fed outside. A presumption of interference could be made with anything from gambling to curfews laws.
To use that argument to then strip away a right that has been voted on by the state's constituency, especially if it involves local morality guidelines and medical expertise?? It seems to me they decided to rewrite CA state policy from the other side of the country. Shenannigans.