Where's this "liberal court" the Right says exists? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

pan6467 · 06-08-2005, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by meembo

I see this as a case of interstate commerce, as the court said. The court can't ignore viable federal law, even if it seems dated and unpopular -- and I'm a dyed-in-the -wool liberal! I think the real test of the political waters is whether the Justice Department tries to prosecute anyone until the time a change in federal law is proposed in Congress, and that will take several attempts as well. This federal law is as stupid as the old sodomy laws of the South. The mission is to get the old law off the books.

How is it an interstate commerce case? Just curious as to why you see it that way.

meembo · 06-08-2005, 06:05 PM

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.

Here in Connecticut it was big news that the Supreme Court ruled that wine could be sold and shipped across state lines when purchased over the internet. All the rich people here could buy wine and have it shipped to them, and the wineries were legally free to do so without fear of prosecution. It is the same principle. I quickly add that I am a big supporter of the medical use of marijuana (and otherwise, for that matter), and I see the political problems for what they are. As with the national debate about abortion, the right case has to come before the Supreme Court at the right time before fundamental issues are defined by the court. And I don't think the political issues are flushed out yet on this issue, until and unless the Justice Department starts to prosecute for interstate shipments and possession.

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."

chickentribs · 06-08-2005, 06:45 PM

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.

meembo · 06-08-2005, 06:53 PM

another quote from the Washington Post, which seems to agree with my point. I quote instead on link for sites that require registration.

"THE SUPREME COURT'S decision Monday in the case of Gonzales v. Raich is a defeat for advocates of the medical use of marijuana, because the court ruled that federal drug laws can be enforced against patients even in states that would permit them to light up. But the true importance of Raich has nothing to do with drugs; it relates rather to the balance of power between the federal government and the states. The government's crusade against medical marijuana is a misguided use of anti-drug resources; that doesn't mean it's unconstitutional. A Supreme Court decision disallowing federal authority in this area would have been a disaster in areas ranging from civil rights enforcement to environmental protection.

"The Constitution's commerce clause, which provided the foundation for the court's ruling in this case, is the foundation of the modern regulatory state, underpinning since the New Deal huge swaths of federal law: worker protections, just about all federal environmental law, laws prohibiting racial discrimination in private-sector employment. Over the past decade, however, the court has tacked away from its most expansive vision of national power, emphasizing that the commerce power is not unlimited. The court said, for example, that Congress can't use the clause to legislate against sexual assaults or to regulate gun possession near schools. That made sense; without some outer bound of the commerce power, Congress would have authority over anything. But the court's recent reconsideration of the commerce clause carried dangers, too. Limit the legislature too much and Congress lacks the power to run a modern country whose national policy is necessarily more ambitious than it was in the 18th century.

"The plaintiffs in Raich , patients who regard pot as essential medication for their conditions, contended that because their use of the drug is noncommercial and within a single state that tolerates medical marijuana, the federal government lacked the power to stop them. This may seem like an attractive principle, but consider its implications. Can Congress protect an endangered species that exists only in a single state and may be wiped out by some noncommercial activity? Can it force an employer who operates only locally to accommodate the disabled?

"Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the court, emphasized the critical principle that if Congress enacts a regulation aimed at "the interstate market in a fungible commodity" -- in this case drugs -- "[t]hat the regulation ensnares some purely intrastate activity is of no moment." Justice Antonin Scalia reached the same conclusion for slightly different reasons. The result is a six-justice majority that stands strongly against a revolutionary approach to commerce clause jurisprudence. While questions remain, the importance of this cross-ideological statement is enormous -- even if it means the Justice Department can continue harassing sick people."

Again, I disagree with the immediate outcome, but I respect the overarching principle that the federal law is constituional and necessary to certain degrees. The law isn't yet specific enough to the use of medical marijuana, and there lies the flaw that should be remedied.

Quick edit: the above is an editorial from the Washington Post. I didn't make that clear at the top.

CShine · 06-08-2005, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

We had 5 activist judges and Scailia, vrs two very conservative and one mostly conservative judge.

All 9 justices are judicial activists. Get used to it. We haven't had a truly restrained Supreme Court justice since the first half of the 20th century.

MSD · 06-08-2005, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

There's a HUGE reason morphine is legal and medicinal marijuana isn't. It's IMHO, a reason Bush and many who are in the pharmaceuticals pocket wanted the result they got.

That is marijuana can be grown anywhere and doesn't need to be processed or formulated or whatever. In essence it is cheap and big business pharmaceuticals would lose money on the meds this would supplant (glaucoma meds, painkillers, etc). They cannot allow this to happen so I am sure they will lobby heavily against any bill allowing it to happen and we will never see one.

Allow me to play Devil's Advocate for a moment and ask you this: If medical marijuana can be grown at home and used to replace various other medications in a cheaper and more effective manner, isn't it safe to say that it can substantially effect interstate commerce in the case of Pharmaceutical companies that manufacture their medical supplies out of state? I make not attempt to defend this from an ethical standpoint, but technically speaking, it seems to fall under Congress' jurisdiction.

chickentribs · 06-08-2005, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct

Allow me to play Devil's Advocate for a moment and ask you this: If medical marijuana can be grown at home and used to replace various other medications in a cheaper and more effective manner, isn't it safe to say that it can substantially effect interstate commerce in the case of Pharmaceutical companies that manufacture their medical supplies out of state? I make not attempt to defend this from an ethical standpoint, but technically speaking, it seems to fall under Congress' jurisdiction.

I'm no attorney, but I believe the authority is invoked based on something hindering commerce for the good of society, not to keep said thing from hindering commerce for your corporate donor... So, hippies blocking the highways would be justifiable action against "the weed", Merk Pharmaceuticals dividend split shouldn't be.

n0nsensical · 06-09-2005, 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chickentribs

I'm no attorney, but I believe the authority is invoked based on something hindering commerce for the good of society, not to keep said thing from hindering commerce for your corporate donor... So, hippies blocking the highways would be justifiable action against "the weed", Merk Pharmaceuticals dividend split shouldn't be.

The Constitution doesn't really specify. It just says "Congress shall have Power...To regulate Commerce...among the several States." (Article IV Section 8) I think if you put nine of the men who signed the Constitution on the Supreme Court for this case, they would have ruled 9-0 in the opposite direction, and I too think it's fairly absurd the notion that people growing and smoking pot without it leaving their properties could have any effect on commerce that Congress should have the power to regulate. But obviously there's a lot of room for interpretation there.

pan6467 · 06-09-2005, 05:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct

Allow me to play Devil's Advocate for a moment and ask you this: If medical marijuana can be grown at home and used to replace various other medications in a cheaper and more effective manner, isn't it safe to say that it can substantially effect interstate commerce in the case of Pharmaceutical companies that manufacture their medical supplies out of state? I make not attempt to defend this from an ethical standpoint, but technically speaking, it seems to fall under Congress' jurisdiction.

Very good question. My feeling is that if Ohio voted for legalized medicinal marijuana, I would be fine with Ohio (or local) government keeping track of my growing and consumption. OR allow farms where growers would grow it and sell it to drugstores and disburse it that way. (Granted that should be included in the voting literature so people would know before they vote.)

My reasoning to allow that loss of "freedom" would be: a much needed medicine will stay illegal otherwise AND it takes away ANY idea that it would be interstate commerce. The vote would say yes, I want it legal but yes I also understand and accept that it would have to be regulated within the state, because it is still illegal in other states.

If it is grown in state and sold exclusively in state and regulated to make sure all that is grown is either kept in state or destroyed.... then there is NO Federal case, whatsoever.

I doubt states went to that length but in hindsight perhaps if they had it would still be legal.

chickentribs · 06-09-2005, 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

If it is grown in state and sold exclusively in state and regulated to make sure all that is grown is either kept in state or destroyed.... then there is NO Federal case, whatsoever.

I doubt states went to that length but in hindsight perhaps if they had it would still be legal.

I don't know pan, if memory serves me, in Ohio it is legal to manufacture and sell fireworks, but illegal to light one. I don't think logic will return to the state until Bob and Hope Taft have moved on to D.C.

pan6467 · 06-09-2005, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chickentribs

I don't know pan, if memory serves me, in Ohio it is legal to manufacture and sell fireworks, but illegal to light one. I don't think logic will return to the state until Bob and Hope Taft have moved on to D.C.

You are very right Chicken and I have always heard it is illegal to transport fireworks over statelines....

As for Bob and Hope Taft...... let's hope Bob never gets into another office, except maybe dogcatcher in someplace like Michigan..... Naw I can't wish Taft upon even Michigan.

06-08-2005, 06:05 PM	#42 (permalink)
meembo Junkie Location: Connecticut	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. Here in Connecticut it was big news that the Supreme Court ruled that wine could be sold and shipped across state lines when purchased over the internet. All the rich people here could buy wine and have it shipped to them, and the wineries were legally free to do so without fear of prosecution. It is the same principle. I quickly add that I am a big supporter of the medical use of marijuana (and otherwise, for that matter), and I see the political problems for what they are. As with the national debate about abortion, the right case has to come before the Supreme Court at the right time before fundamental issues are defined by the court. And I don't think the political issues are flushed out yet on this issue, until and unless the Justice Department starts to prosecute for interstate shipments and possession. 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." __________________ less I say, smarter I am Last edited by meembo; 06-08-2005 at 06:09 PM..

06-08-2005, 06:53 PM	#44 (permalink)
meembo Junkie Location: Connecticut	another quote from the Washington Post, which seems to agree with my point. I quote instead on link for sites that require registration. "THE SUPREME COURT'S decision Monday in the case of Gonzales v. Raich is a defeat for advocates of the medical use of marijuana, because the court ruled that federal drug laws can be enforced against patients even in states that would permit them to light up. But the true importance of Raich has nothing to do with drugs; it relates rather to the balance of power between the federal government and the states. The government's crusade against medical marijuana is a misguided use of anti-drug resources; that doesn't mean it's unconstitutional. A Supreme Court decision disallowing federal authority in this area would have been a disaster in areas ranging from civil rights enforcement to environmental protection. "The Constitution's commerce clause, which provided the foundation for the court's ruling in this case, is the foundation of the modern regulatory state, underpinning since the New Deal huge swaths of federal law: worker protections, just about all federal environmental law, laws prohibiting racial discrimination in private-sector employment. Over the past decade, however, the court has tacked away from its most expansive vision of national power, emphasizing that the commerce power is not unlimited. The court said, for example, that Congress can't use the clause to legislate against sexual assaults or to regulate gun possession near schools. That made sense; without some outer bound of the commerce power, Congress would have authority over anything. But the court's recent reconsideration of the commerce clause carried dangers, too. Limit the legislature too much and Congress lacks the power to run a modern country whose national policy is necessarily more ambitious than it was in the 18th century. "The plaintiffs in Raich , patients who regard pot as essential medication for their conditions, contended that because their use of the drug is noncommercial and within a single state that tolerates medical marijuana, the federal government lacked the power to stop them. This may seem like an attractive principle, but consider its implications. Can Congress protect an endangered species that exists only in a single state and may be wiped out by some noncommercial activity? Can it force an employer who operates only locally to accommodate the disabled? "Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the court, emphasized the critical principle that if Congress enacts a regulation aimed at "the interstate market in a fungible commodity" -- in this case drugs -- "[t]hat the regulation ensnares some purely intrastate activity is of no moment." Justice Antonin Scalia reached the same conclusion for slightly different reasons. The result is a six-justice majority that stands strongly against a revolutionary approach to commerce clause jurisprudence. While questions remain, the importance of this cross-ideological statement is enormous -- even if it means the Justice Department can continue harassing sick people." Again, I disagree with the immediate outcome, but I respect the overarching principle that the federal law is constituional and necessary to certain degrees. The law isn't yet specific enough to the use of medical marijuana, and there lies the flaw that should be remedied. Quick edit: the above is an editorial from the Washington Post. I didn't make that clear at the top. __________________ less I say, smarter I am Last edited by meembo; 06-08-2005 at 07:01 PM..