Judge Breyer's action is questionable, most questionable

[Jeeper]

I dont see why everyone has a problem with this.

The federal government is the SUPREME law maker in this country. That fact is VERY clearly written into the constitution in Article 6 under what is commonly refered to as "the supremecy clause".

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

This clause covers this case exactly. If a state law conflicts with federal then the federal wins. Very simple.

This case will not get overturned on appeal. I found multiple SCOTUS and COA cases that had the same basic facts.

 

[BogBabe]

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof;

The problem is that the drug laws of the federal government were not made "in pursuance thereof" with respect to the Constitution. The Constitution delegates certain powers to the federal government, and the federal government is permitted to make laws only "in pursuance" of those specific delegated powers.

The Constitution does not delegate to the federal government any power to regulate what an individual may put into his own body.

Heck, even 80 years ago they knew they needed a constitutional amendment to permit the federal government to ban alcohol.

 

[45-auto]

BogBabe has it right.

Ain't no business of the federal government (or the state for that matter) what I have in my pocket or my bloodstream. The pocket might have a .45 or a .357. The bloodstream might have some metabolites from a single malt scotch. None of their damn business.

If I hurt somebody, that's another matter.

But what I have in my house, my pocket or my bloodstream is my business and NOT the government's.

So many current laws are prima facia unconstitutional that it's pathetic.

 

[CZ-75]

Put me down as one wondering how the Feds get by with circumventing the 9th and 10th amendments.

Shouldn't wonder, though, considering that we have to plead for our 2nd amendment rights, which are spelled out far more clearly than our rights to ingest the substances we choose.

 

[Mike Irwin]

I don't think they're questionable at all.

They leave the arena WIDE open for an appeal to the Federal appeals court and on to the Supremes over the issue of State's vs Federal rights as well as the issue of denying an affirmative defense.

In a way, his actions are a good thing.

If he had allowed in the information on the State law, and the person had been convicted (which it appears that he would not have been), an appeal on the competing rights would have been a lot more difficult.

The current Supreme Court seems to be at least moderately pro States rights.

 

[spartacus2002]

Put me down as one wondering how the Feds get by with circumventing the 9th and 10th amendments.

Because, sheeple get suckered in by the argument that It's for the cheeeeeeeeeeeellldren!!

 

[alan]

Mike Irwin:

Seems like an interesting point.

 

[Jeeper]

Mike Irwin

You are very correct that the current SCOTUS is very pro-state. They have decided many times only to use the pre-emption capabilities in the supremecy clause only if the federal statute says so. I doubt this is really an affirmative defense since the state law is basically illegal in the federal arena. I did some quick searches on Westlaw and found a bunch of similar cases. IMHO this case is over and will be affirmed on appeal.

In addition I dont really see how drugs cannot be considered intersate commerce. The debate over what the goverment can allow you to put into your body is way to complicated to be done here.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"Interstate commerce..."

I have SERIOUS problems with the IC clause being used to justify anti-drug laws.

As anti-drug as I am, the IC clause to me gives the Feds the ability to regulate trade, not to make an entire trade illegal. That, to me, sees as if it is FAR beyond the purpose and intent of the IC statutes.

Also, I simply don't see how the IC clause can be brought to bear in this case.

I believe this guy was growing his own for medicinal use.

As long as he doesn't transport it out of the state, that's NOT interstate commerce, and should not be subject to Federal regulation.

 

[spartacus2002]

Originally, the Interstate Commerce Clause was only designed to give Federal Govt the power to remove trade barriers between states. In the 18th century usage of the word in the context of the constitution, "Regulate" meant "regularize" or "standardize".