Gonzales V. Raich; other implications


PDA






Cellar Dweller
June 19, 2005, 02:28 AM
To quote Justice Thomas in his dissent:
Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. 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.

Apply to reloading, by changing marijuana to ammunition .
Apply to homebrewing, by substituting "beer" or "wine" instead.

I don't see a difference. The only question is how long said activities will remain legal...

If you enjoyed reading about "Gonzales V. Raich; other implications" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
HKUSP45C
June 19, 2005, 05:13 AM
Yes, it would appear your PB&J, that you made from scratch, is subject to regulation by congress. What did you do about it today?

publius
June 19, 2005, 10:58 AM
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD1.html

If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison’s assurance to the people of New York that the “powers delegated” to the Federal Government are “few and defined,” while those of the States are “numerous and indefinite.” The Federalist No. 45, at 313 (J. Madison).

Hawkmoon
June 19, 2005, 11:31 AM
Publius is correct. Reloading would certainly fall prey to the same stretch of logic, (a) because the components used in reloading probably come from other states, and (b) because by reloading locally you "affect" interstate commerce by NOT buying a product from another state.

We NEED the ability for the People to recall Supreme Court justices. This ruling is just possibly the most horrendous, egregious example of overstepping the Constitution I've yet seen them produce.

AZRickD
June 19, 2005, 04:47 PM
There goes my Liberty Garden.

"No, Sir. You may not plant Roma tomatoes. Only beefsteak. And those carrots, there. Uproot them all. The price is too low this year."

Hard to imagine Madison, or even Hamilton supporting Soviet-style central planning.

Rick
Rethinking my five-year plan.

taliv
June 19, 2005, 04:54 PM
but more to the point, it's not hard to imagine Bush/cheney/scalia supporting Soviet-style central planning.

beerslurpy
June 19, 2005, 05:00 PM
Apply to homebrewing, by substituting "beer" or "wine" instead.

Uh, that is regulated by congress, a fact I am none too pleased about. I can only brew 100 gallons per adult member of my household.

Sindawe
June 19, 2005, 05:01 PM
The next case to watch for a ruling on is Kelo vs. New London http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/docket/2004/february.html Raich has been decided, IIRC Stewart was sent back with a note attached saying "See Raich".

beerslurpy
June 19, 2005, 05:22 PM
Oh crap, I forgot about New London.

BostonGeorge
June 20, 2005, 09:15 AM
What is New London challanging? I must have missed that one while I was dismantling my woodshop so as not to affect interstate commerce.

EDIT: didn't see the link

slowworm
June 20, 2005, 10:29 AM
Uh, that is regulated by congress, a fact I am none too pleased about. I can only brew 100 gallons per adult member of my household.

BeerSlurpy,

You wouldn't happen to know the regs on distillation for personal comsumption would you. I'm under the impression you can't distill without a license even for personal use, but then folks think you need a permit to own firearms so I may be wrong.

If you enjoyed reading about "Gonzales V. Raich; other implications" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!