Posted on 12/19/2014 10:16:21 PM PST by right-wing agnostic
Co-blogger Jonathan Adler and Vanderbilt law professor Robert Mikos have pointed out some of the flaws in the lawsuit filed by Nebraska and Oklahoma urging a federal court to invalidate marijuana legalization in neighboring Colorado. In the unlikely event that the plaintiff states prevail, they will also have set a very dangerous precedent – one that conservatives are likely to rue in other areas.
Nebraska and Oklahoma argue that Colorado’s decision to legalize marijuana under state law, in the face of continuing federal prohibition, harms neighboring states because it facilitates the flow of marijuana across their borders and may increase crime there. Liberal states with strict gun control laws raise exactly the same complaints about the flow of guns from neighboring conservative states with relatively permissive firearms laws. If Nebraska and Oklahoma can force Colorado to criminalize marijuana under state law because the federal government has done so under federal law, then Maryland can force Virginia to ban any gun sales that are restricted under federal law. Liberals have, in fact, advocated the enactment of stronger federal gun control laws for years. The same goes for conservative states that have less restrictive labor regulations or environmental regulations than neighboring states do.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
No, it shouldn't. In Shreveport, the court ruled that the relevant fact was that the railroad was a registered carrier of interstate commerce and therefore subject to being regulated. Whatever incidental effect that regulation had on intrastate commerce was irrelevant.
In Wickard, they turned their own logic upside down. It became irrelevant whether Filburn was a registered carrier and the only relevant issue was that they regulated intrastate commerce.
They did exactly what Story warned against, and it has had exactly the effect he predicted.
I agree. But the only thing I'm establishing is the possibility that your agenda is interfering with your argument.
No, they shouldn't have; the Shreveport Rate Cases ruling asserts the authority of Congress only with specific reference to shipping rates - and its only broader language is to limit the ends for which that authority is meant to be used, namely preventing state-versus-state battles (which does not include all nonuniformity among states):
"Interstate trade was not left to be destroyed or impeded by the rivalries of local government. The purpose was to make impossible the recurrence of the evils which had overwhelmed the Confederation, and to provide the necessary basis of national unity by insuring 'uniformity of regulation against conflicting and discriminating state legislation.'" (emphasis added)
Do you work for the federal government?
It's also possible that you have an agenda that is interfering with your argument - such as, perhaps, a fervent desire to keep marijuana away from your kids and a mistaken belief that the general marijuana prohibition furthers that end.
Now, how is it that someone who only signed up less than 2 weeks ago knows that screen name?
Just the opposite. The court ruled that that the incidental effect of intrastate rates on the interstate rates that Congress was regulating was relevant, meaning Congress could also regulate intrastate rates.
"It became irrelevant whether Filburn was a registered carrier and the only relevant issue was that they regulated intrastate commerce."
At the time of this case, Congress was already constitutionally regulating the interstate commerce of wheat. In order for the interstate regulation to work, however, farmers had to agree to only produce a certain amount of wheat or pay a penalty. Filburn did neither. No big deal, but if many "Filburns" did the same, the regulation would fail.
The court ruled that excess wheat grown for personal consumption would have a substantial effect on the interstate wheat Congress was regulating; therefore, Congress could regulate intrastate wheat.
This all falls under Congress' power to regulate.
Or works for a federal agency that was created by Congress using the New Deal "substantial effects" doctrine of the Commerce Clause as it's claim of Constitutional authority.
All of the personal information I wish to disclose can be found on my profile page.
Because he's an icon.
If you find the topic of this thread to be boring, perhaps there’s another more interesting.
The decision states:
"by reason of its control over the interstate carrier in all matters having such a close and substantial relation to interstate commerce that it is necessary or appropriate to exercise the control for the effective government of that commerce."
No carrier, no control.
I don’t scare off that easily, retread.
USSC rulings have been both broad and narrow, and Wickard v Filburn - unlike the Shreveport Rate Cases ruling - was explicitly broad:
"questions of the power of Congress are not to be decided by reference to any formula which would give controlling force to nomenclature such as 'production' and 'indirect' and foreclose consideration of the actual effects of the activity in question upon interstate commerce. [...] But even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'"
No, they applied it to guns too. You know that and approve.
Of course not. Not with an admin mod's skirts to hide behind.
Going off-topic already?
Not a bit. Wheat, drugs, guns, carbon dioxide, hate crimes, domestic violence, health insurance, all that and more claimed to fall under the authority of Congress by virtue of a "substantial effect on interstate commerce". Just as Story predicted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.