To: fr_freak
Constitution gives fed the right to regulate interstate commerce, so they have the right to regulate pot commerce that crosses state lines. However, Justice Thomas was following the constitution when he said fed had no right to regulate pot within a state. I think it was Gonzales v. Raich in 2005, but Justice Thomas was in the minority unfortunately. Blame Wickard v. Filburn.
70 posted on
09/06/2022 2:59:11 PM PDT by
CitizenUSA
(Proverbs 14:34 Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people.)
To: CitizenUSA
Constitution gives fed the right to regulate interstate commerce, so they have the right to regulate pot commerce that crosses state lines. However, Justice Thomas was following the constitution when he said fed had no right to regulate pot within a state.
Yes, that's exactly correct. And the fed clearly overstepped their boundaries when they decided they could dictate what someone could grow in his backyard or smoke in his house.
However, a case could also be made that the federal government's role in regulating interstate commerce does not extend to the power to make anything illegal. They were merely to be a mediator between States.
71 posted on
09/06/2022 3:34:25 PM PDT by
fr_freak
To: CitizenUSA
Read the Thomas dissent in U.S. v Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).
74 posted on
09/07/2022 4:13:29 PM PDT by
frithguild
(The warmth and goodness of Gaia is a nuclear reactor in the Earth's core that burns Thorium)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson