I don't see this as a left or right issue, it is a right or wrong issue. Right being true to the Constitution and wrong being finding some way for Feds to revoke the people's voices.

I'll argue where tax money should be spent or Bush or other issues that need and should be, but when it comes to rights..... like I said Left/Right both should be able to agree on issues where our rights are at stake, such as this.

There's a fantastic article on MSNBC about this.

I agree, but it's not Bush that will decide this. The one thing we know for certain about Rogers is his statement that he will respect decided law. He will be proving that if he goes the way of the interstate commerce clause in upholding the Fed's "right" to oversee the use of narcotic drugs.

We can all call BS, if Rogers overturns Roe v. Wade.

What if the drugs used are produced in Oregon?

Bold and Italics mine.

Are you doing this on purpose? If so, I don't get the joke. His name is Justice Roberts. Anyway not meaning to pick nits...just saying is all:thumbsup:.

-bear

You mean like, California where not only were they exclusively intrastate, but they were also noncommercial? (Gonzales v Raich).

It doesn't seem to matter in the least.

We'll see.

Here, for the record, are the oft referred to 16 words of Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, commonly called the interstate commerce clause, which gives congress the authority:

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

-b-

People forget that we have an entire eastern section of the state that's pretty conservative. We have five representatives to Congress in Oregon--4 are Dems and 1 is a Republican (as you can guess, he represents that eastern half). But the fact is that this state passed the law by a WIDE majority BOTH times (I believe we passed it by 85% in 1997) and more than 15% of Oregonians live in the eastern part of the state. Sometimes the conservatives in this state surprise you by passing liberal legislation--but the entire state is by no means liberal.

However, you better believe it that most Oregonians are watching this court case closely, and we're prepared to raise a stink if SCOTUS rules against Death With Dignity.

Doesn't matter. The controlled substances laws might allow them to control any substance on the federal level, meaning they can say "you cannot prescribe lethal amounts of anything, no matter how much someone wants you to" and that's that... no interstate commerce to fuss with, and you don't have to defeat a law people put into effect...

It's like if the government wanted to outlaw guns, but the people kept voting to allow guns anyway, and the government came back and said "fine, have your guns.. but since i'm in charge of ammo manufacture and shipping, i say ammo is illegal in america. have fun with your empty guns."

Complete brain fart. :eek: Thanks for the catch.

Did you know that many of the rulings based on the IC clause, the ones that the Right-wing classically and vehemently opposes, were repealments of Jim Crow legislation passed by various states? Or that if the government had no right to impose agricultural regulations such as you oppose above it would bankrupt every family farmer in the country and distrupt the availability of food?

The question at hand is whether the federal goverment has the ability to regulate the specific dosage of a drug which it has already approved for use: morphine. I, as it seems almost everyone here, do not think it does. Clearly though, it's not an issue that was forseen in 1787. So ultimately it's left to interpretation of those appointed to the court who are in turn a reflection of the people elected over the past 25 years. It's kind of scary in that light to consider the superficial issues which cause most people to vote one way or another: boys kissing boys, regional accents, hairstyles, particulars of weapon availability, and flashy media displays.

Well, SCOTUS has made its ruling in favor of Oregon with a 6-3 majority.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/17/po...rtner=homepage

Congrats Ore. now I can't wait to hear how the Justices legislated from the bench or see what Bush has to say.

Maybe there is hope, maybe we have a judge or 2 on the Bench that sees how Bush is stacking the court and may have decided to move a little Left in his/her decisions.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Oh my fucking God it shows the Neo Con's agenda right there..... "FUCK THE STATES THE FEDS MAKE THE LAWS."

That is the very essence of what this guy said.

Still lost as to how the Libertarians and true Conservatives who want less federal government can support these people. :crazy: Seems hypocritical to me.

I've disagreed with Scalias opinions many times and i'll add this one to the pile. I'm starting to put Scalia in the same bucket as 'flip-flop' john kerry. How he can say he's an 'originalist' and still come out with some of the garbage opinions like this one is totally perplexing.

Personally, I don't know any libertarians who support the Republican neo-cons, and I know many conservatives who don't either.

Anyway, I'm glad to see this ruling.

how did roberts vote on this?

Ah but those people voted for Bush...... and keep voting in GOP congressmen to rubber stamp anything Bush wants.

What people say they want and how they vote are obviously at odds with each other.

It's BS for these Conservatives and Libertarians to say they don't support the neo cons and want less government, then vote for Bush and his rubber stampers.

If you are true to your beliefs you'll vote for who you truly believe in, you'll work for them and get out their messages.

People did for Perot, even though they knew he had no chance to win, they made a statement and it did shake things up a little. Sadly the GOP squashed it with their pseudo "Contract for America" which possessed term limits and balanced budgets...... Neither of which they honored or even talk about anymore.

He, along with Scalia and Thomas, dissented

roberts dissented with thomas and scalia.

i wonder how the vote would have turned out with alito on board. it's hard to gauge the guy, but from the hearings he seemed a bit more conservative than roberts. i don't know if that means libertarian conservative or you-can't-do-that conservative, although his record seems to indicate a tendency toward the latter. every case is unique, of course.

Did you get a look at what the libertarian party had for a 04 candidate? Badnarik was a total moron to push some of the idiotology that he spewed. What other choice did we have?

Well, maybe dksuddeth voted for Bush, but none of the libertarians (or independents for that matter) that I know voted for him. I'll concede that I live in a state where we can freely vote our conscience without worrying about "spoiling" the election, but I know there were many libertarians out of my state who did not vote for Bush either. When Badnarik was asked who was better, Bush or Kerry, he refused to pick one pointing out that both are equally bad, only differently so. Honestly, dksuddeth, I'm not sure why you felt the need to vote for Bush either. You live in a state that was going to go to him no matter what - voting for Badnarik would have had no effect on the election and if more people in situations such as yours had done it, maybe the Libertarian party would have gotten more recognition and enough votes to be declared a major national party. (Same goes for Green supporters in solid states such as IL and TX.)

Anyway, my main point is that you shouldn't be assuming that libertarians voted for Bush. People who are willing to follow a third party are generally a lot less likely to also fall under the belief that they must vote for SOMEONE. Of the people I know who did not like Bush or Kerry, they either voted Badnarik (either because they agreed with him, or simply for the purpose of lending support to an "other") or they didn't vote at all. Yes, many libertarians DID vote for Bush (and many voted for Kerry too: most libertarians are quite aware that the Bush administration doesn't resemble their beliefs socially OR economically), but many also did not. So, let's not make broad assumptions otherwise.

I have often stated on here that in 2000 I voted proudly for Nader, mainly because I vote for the man I think will best represent my values and beliefs and not what party or against someone. (Although, admittedly 2004 was pretty damn close to having to vote for Kerry just so Bush wouldn't win.... Kerry just does not have that charisma nor did he have much of a platform).

Third parties can flourish and get their start at local and state levels. I am saddened that more people do not vote their conscience. Perhaps, if they did the parties would have to truly take notice and change.

To me there is no excuse to say "I voted for Bush/Kerry because I wanted to make sure the other guy lost, even though I truly supported this third party guy."

Where are your values? You are definately selling your vote and voice out. Things will never change as long as people do that..... and unfortunately peoplefeel they have no choice because the press and the people we rely upon to inform us of third parties refuse to do so.

I must say Secret, I have gained respect for you and your convictions because you are one of the few who didn't sell short, who voted your beliefs. We need more in the country like you.

You had the choice to write in a vote, to not vote for a president, to campaign all Summer for someone who did espouse your views.

You have the power man. USE IT. If you don't like the fact that the congressman in your district is too partisan, stand up be heard. Find that person that best represents you and push to be heard. Write letters to your editor, volunteer to help the man you choose campaign, print flyers, go door to door, organize fundraisers, shout as loud as you can and get others attention so that they can see there are choices.

Or do what so many others do and vote for "the lesser of 2 evils" and then complain how government doesn't listen or have accountability to the people.

The only true way a power hungry man will ever attain control over this nation is if we continue to be silent and choose to not be heard by just being sheep and voting for the same ol same ol.

well heres the big problem with that Pan, NOBODY supports my entire view system. With that in mind, I have to pick the lesser of all evils. In 04, that happened to be Bush. write in votes for president , while sounding all noble, are worthless. Unless they are on the ballot, you will not be making any noticable statement. Now, more localized votes, like a state or city election, you get enough people to do the same write in, you can have an effect. I don't see one write in saying anything in a voice of 250 million.

You will never find anyone that agrees with you in everything political, the key is to find the one that takes the issues closest to you and stands close to your beliefs. But at the same token don't be a one issue voter.

Our political parties and the way they have monopolized the mapping of districts, the requirements states have for people to get on ballots and the media has to change. They truly do not give anyone a chance to even try.

Perot was able to only because he had more money than he knew what to do with and bought 30 minute prime time slots on networks (after which a GOP ran Congress and a DEM President made that tactic illegal.... wonder why).

Nader had some coverage only because he has a cult following.

But Badnarik and the others who ran in '04 I never heard of in ANY form except here.

DK, I'm not trying to lecture, I believe the passion you have CAN make a difference if you want it to. Everyone on here can make a difference. The problem is when you are worried about paying bills, working long hard hours it is hard to speak out and organize.

People are so inundated with negativity about government, about the country that very few have any optimism or belief in the system left. They vote for people they know suck and are corrupt but they do not know what to do to change the system because they have been fed for so long that the 2 parties are all there ever will be and you can't fight the system.

People can fight back, it takes one voice and a few people to back that voice and more people will notice and become voices and in time the system can change.

But, as we saw in '94 we have to be careful that a party doesn't take the platform to win and then shit can the promises (Contract For America ring a bell anyone).

Our forefathers believed in us enough to give us the chance to have a voice. Those who say they didn't are the people who are scared that the system will change so they beat everyone up with the negativity.

It's bullshit but that's what keeps them in power and people from standing up.

Maybe it is truly time for college students and people unhappy with the system to stand up and be heard. It's the only way change will ever happen.