Federalism and Medical Marijuana

[GT]

Jury nullification = OJ

And the killer walks free.

G

 

[Langenator]

We're discussing drugs on a gun forum because the discussion relates to the power of the federal government and to individual rights.

Also because the specific case, I think it's now called Gonzalez v. Raich is extremely germane to US v. Stewart, which is almost identical except with homegrown submachineguns instead of pot.

 

[corncob]

Why do we have to talk about illegal drugs on a gun forum?

Because, in this case, even the .gov has admitted that their unconstitutional regulation of guns is tied to their unconstitutional regulation of marijuana plants. That's why we're all anticipating the outcome of the Raich case--the Man specifically asked the Supremes to hold off on deciding the home-grown machine gun case untill the former was decided. Ideally, if we can start poking a few good-szed holes in the .gov's big New Deal powergrab, the whole thing will start to unravel, and we may get some of our rights back. Or rather, we'll be able to excersize them without fear of reprisal from our oppressors.

I'm not optimistic.

Many people on this forum see no connection between drugs (which are bad and dangerous) and guns (which are part of our cultural heritage, etc.). I, for one, hope this particular situation would open some eyes around here, considering that Mr. Ashcroft himself has drawn a parallel.

Again, not optimistic.

 

[publius]

Why do we have to talk about illegal drugs on a gun forum?

Petition to the Supreme Court in the Stewart machine gun case:

http://www.mp5.net/info/wilson.pet.app.pdf

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be held pending this Court’s decision in Ashcroft v. Raich, No. 03-1454 (to be argued Nov. 29, 2004), and then disposed of as appropriate in light of the Court’s decision in that case.

The extent of federal gun laws is right now dependent upon the extent of federal drug laws. This is not the first time the gun grabbers have followed trails blazed by drug warriors, nor will it be the last.

 

[Bubbles]

Ruling in, 6-3 to overturn. Details soon...

From SCOTUSBlog:

Justice O'Connor wrote the principal dissent, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Thomas. Justice Thomas wrote a separate dissent.

 

[RealGun]

The report I listened to on MSNBC indicated that the Feds could prosecute private growth, possession, and use for medicinal purposes. There was a suggestion that Wicker (growing wheat for private use) was cited.

Commentary included the opinion to the effect that it was too difficult for enforcement to discern the exact intent of use. The big one was the rationale that there was a government interest in enforcement. That part is activist in my initial opinion. I gather the real question was "what if many did this?" I think the prospect of the opposing precedent alarmed them, and they rationalized their way out of it.

 

[mons meg]

Well, the "conservative" justices seem to have chickened out of their earlier "pro-states' rights" stances.

 

[Bubbles]

Link to Thomas Dissent

 

[publius]

Disappointed, but not surprised. I've hunted high and low on the internet, and found only two drug warriors willing to comment on Raich and Stewart. Both favored the New Deal interpretation of the commerce clause. No others spoke on the matter, and silence generally implies assent.

Big government has broad support in this country.

 

[RealGun]

Washington Post.com report quote verifying who voted for or against:

"In a dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said that states should be allowed to set their own rules.

"The states' core police powers have always included authority to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens," said O'Connor, who was joined by two other states' rights advocates: Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas."

Even more alarming was Stevens opinion for the ruling:

The court agreed with the administration in an opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who said that the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 was a valid exercise of federal power by the Congress "even as applied to the troubling facts of this case."

It really was about the Supremacy clause:

"Stevens said that the appellate court reached a different conclusion only "by isolating a separate and distinct class of activities that it held to be beyond the reach of federal power, defined as the intrastate, noncommercial cultivation, possession and use of marijuana for personal medical purposes on the advice of a physician and in accordance with state law."

In addition, he said, "limiting the activity to marijuana possession and cultivation in accordance with state law cannot serve to " place" the activities "beyond congressional reach." The Constitution's Supremacy Clause, he said, "unambiguously provides that if there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail."

I think I could fabricate a lot of rationale for many things using simply this last sentence (The Constitution's Supremacy Clause, he said, "unambiguously provides that if there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail."). It depends when you apply it, but the prospects are pretty disturbing.

There didn't appear to be any real question about federal jurisdiction. i.e the commerce clause. It was about supremacy.

 

[publius]

In order for there to be a conflict, the feds must have authority in the first place.

 

[bg]

I wonder if people who were on the fence thinking about the 06 elections,
have now made a decision. Only ones who can go over this is Congress,
isn't it ? Think there may be a change as far as seats coming with this
ruling being handed down ?

What I'm asking is to you think this will fire up the liberal front as well as
moderate GOP voters ? I think the ruling is wrong. It should be left up
to the states. More and more seems the Gov is using Oz as a template.

 

[RealGun]

I thought this was the core of Thomas' dissent.

Congress cannot define the scope of its own power merely by declaring the necessity of its enactments.

The following paragraph was central as well.

In sum, neither in enacting the CSA nor in defending its application to respondents has the Government offered any obvious reason why banning medical marijuana use is necessary to stem the tide of interstate drug trafficking. Congress’ goal of curtailing the interstate drug trade would not plainly be thwarted if it could not apply the CSA to patients like Monson and Raich. That is, unless Congress’ aim is really to exercise police power of the sort reserved to the States in order to eliminate even the intrastate possession and use of marijuana.

*CSA - Controlled Substances Act

In any case, he certainly expanded his position on both abuses of commerce powers and what he thinks about the views and opinions of others on the Court.

 

[RealGun]

In order for there to be a conflict, the feds must have authority in the first place. - publius

I don't believe that question was being directly considered. In any event, it wasn't contested by the arguments in this case, was it? I think it was about jurisdiction, not authority other than supremacy.

 

[publius]

RG, U R correct, sir. It was an "as applied" challenge, not a challenge to the law itself.