Absolutely true. To have ruled otherwise would be an example of the Court making (altering) federal law.
Also, the headline is great. Court opposes giving medicine to sick people. Those meanies!!
U.S. Constitution
Article III, Section 2
1. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this constitution, the laws of the United States
From "Restoring the Lost Constitution,"
…judicial nullification was included within the original meaning of the “judicial power.” Throughout the duration of the Convention no one disputed the existence of a judicial power to nullify unconstitutional laws.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others (rights) retained by the people."
What constitution is Justice Stevens reading?
Is it not a right "retained by the people," of free people, to consume the chemical of their choice, in the quantity of their choce, for the reason of their choice?
Justice Stevens and the majority is so constitutionally incorrect it makes me want to puke.
Why do free people have to beg for their natural rights to be respected and not impugned by the three branches of their federal government that is explicitly prohibited from doing the same?
Does not a "written down" constitution mean anything?
No power of Congress, can usurp the Bill of Rights.
Would this be the same federal law that is in clear disagreement with the 10th Amendment? Interesting that the only ones in dissent were the conservatives. Which makes sense since because many here are cheering the liberal decision. And it's becoming evidently clear Republican and conservative are mutually exclusive of each other. Yet more evidence Republicans care no more for the document than their Democrat counterparts