Is this supposed to be an MJ thread or what?
Can libertarians ever make a point without drugs?
lol
How about this: Moving from state to state affects interstate commerce, so the fedgov will soon tell you where to live or tax you for crossing the state border
Justice Thomas is absolutely right. We have been betrayed completely by the USSC on the Commerce Clause. There is simply no denying it.
The Supremes have granted the ferragummit (or attempted to) virtually unlimited regulatory power via this Commerce Clause travesty.
The Founders could not possibly have endorsed such an interpretation, and neither does the Constitution by any stretch of the imagination codify such an absurdity.
It is nothing but a raw grab for unconstitutional Federal power.
Tyranny, in other words.
How do we remove Supreme Court Justices?
Was Scalia in the majority on this decision?
I believe impeachment is in order when such Tyranny is promulgated by a Federal Judge...
It’s funny, in a sad, sick sort of way, watching “conservatives” come on to this post, see that marijuana is involved, and shut their minds to the actual substance. Wickard v Fillburn? What’s that? Idiots.
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution
For example, the government was allowed to claim in Wickard v. Filburn that the growing of private grain materially affected interstate commerce, without any chance being given to challenge that assertion before a jury.
Other issues that need to be brought before juries include the reasonableness of searches, existence of probable cause, the appropriateness of punishments for particular criminal acts, etc. While it's good to have judges act as a first-line barrier against government abuse of such issues, a jury should act as a backstop. A judge generally won't throw out the results of a search unless it was patently unreasonable; a jury can and should apply a somewhat looser standard and disregard evidence if they find that the search was not reasonable (even if it's not so patently unreasonable that no honest person could find it reasonable).
To be sure, today's jurors often aren't the best and brightest, but it's pretty clear that the reason prosecutors and judges don't allow such matters to be brought before them is that they know they'd lose a lot of cases if jurors knew the truth.
If Federal alcohol laws required an amendment (since repealed), what gives Congress the power to legislate about weed?
It is not for the Court to have the final say whether anything is Constitutional. It is penultimately to States and States and finally to the People. I learn that from the War between the States which was also the Civil War.
The Supreme Court in Dredd Scott made a atrocious ruling. Some of people (viz John Boown) attempted to overrule, but their efforts were futile. Out of the proper order.
It was the States who had to overrule first. And they did. The Southern States declared independence from an out of control Federal tyranny. We now had a War between the States.
But that *obviously* did not settle the matter or properly rebuke the Court. Instead it wasn’t until the PEOPLE came forward — some on one side of the decision, others on the opposing side, that the matter became settled. Up to ten percent of the southern people agreed that the Court’s ruling was wrong (see the Arkansas First Cavalry, and perhaps an equivalent percent of people in the north accepted the natural outcome of the court’s decision, for example see the New York Draft Riots.
In any case the issue was settled BY THE PEOPLE, with the blood and honor OF THE PEOPLE, so that government FOR THE PEOPLE, that is OUR AGENT, NEVER OUR MASTER, should not perish from this Earth.
“In 2005 the Supreme Court said the federal government’s power to “regulate commerce…among the several states” extends to the tiniest speck of marijuana wherever it may be found, even in the home of a patient who grows it for her own medical use in compliance with state law. “If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause,” Justice Clarence Thomas warned in his dissent, “then it can regulate virtually anything—and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.””
And pretty much every state that has Medical Marijuana laws are STILL growing and practicing the Medical Marijuana.
Even thou I don’t like Marijuana, and don;t necessarily think it should be legal i solute and support the States that do.
Its long past time we have the corsage to ignore the Federal employees in black robes on the extent of their own masters power.
Indeed I’m even thinking about voting against Susana Martinez simply because she mentioned in passing that she was against the New Mexico nullification effort due to the “federal act”(although its clear she intends to do nothing about it).
It is soo essential that our states actively disregard the lawless edicts of the Federal court that there are little to no other domestic matters of greater important.
This is not about Marijuana, this is about the limited to non-existent domestic authority of the Federal Government.
So its fine if a canadit wants to be against Medical Marijuana as a domestic policy issue, but its NOT fine if they want to be against it simply because the Federal Government has usurped the authority to outlaw the non-economic intrastate uses of a plant.