Posted on 05/10/2004 10:50:25 AM PDT by DaveCooper
Even a stopped clock is right at least twice a day.
Hmmmm. Half of the Federal WOD budget is spent on education and advertising, and the other half is spent on drug interdiction at our borders and overseas. (Well over 90% of drug arrests are done by state and local police.) Seems to me that these DEA agents are just as likely to catch a terrorist as they are drugs. Why would we want to take agents away from our border?
"In Raich v. Ashcroft, the Ninth Circuit correctly disallowed the Constitution’s commerce-clause rationale for Federal intervention."
The Ninth Circuit, affectionately known as the Ninth Circus -- THE most overturned lower court in the U.S. -- went against all previous lower court commerce clause rulings with their decision. As a matter of fact, it wasn't the full Ninth Circuit. It was a three-judge panel in which one judge dissented!
"After all, how can interstate commerce include intrastate, noncommercial activity?"
Tell me. How can Deroy Murdock from National Review Online never had heard of Wickard v Filburn, 317 US 111 (1942), THE defining case for intrastate noncommercial activity affecting interstate commerce? C'mon, Deroy.
"and harassing people such as Angel Raich who has used medical marijuana to treat a brain tumor, wasting syndrome, seizures, and more."
"And more", I like that. Marijuana, the miracle drug.
Did you know that 99% of medical marijuana patients were smoking marijuana before visiting their doctor? Doctors aren't "recommending" this drug -- all they're doing is signing off on a patient's existing use.
Morrison. Lopez. Convenient omission. Typical.
Isn't it possible for you to add your two cents without trying to take that two cents from someone else?
LOL! The problem is, the ninth is a digital clock and it's battery is dead.
"The Ninth Circuit, affectionately known as the Ninth Circus -- THE most overturned lower court in the U.S. -- went against all previous lower court commerce clause rulings dealing with the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 with their decision."
Better?
This recommendation, in the form of doctor's notes, is protected doctor-patient "speech". The patient requests a copy of that part of his medical file, takes the note to his local cannabis club, and receives the badly needed pot to curb the intractable pain of his ingrown toenail for which nothing else works.
This in a country, mind you, with the best and most advanced medicine and medical procedures on the planet. Next, we'll all be chewing Willow Bark for our headaches after placing crystals on our body while dancing naked around the fire at full moon.
And if it's "understood" that the both you and the author are talking about drugs, and the CSA in particular, and not the Commerce Clause in general, why are you referencing Wickard v. Filburn?
Keep up with the class or we're going to have to hold you back a year.
Why don't you try adding something to the discussion rather than playing these stupid "gotcha" games? Too hard?
You want me to add something? OK. The man is correct. In this particular case and very few if any others, the 9th was correct. On this particular issue, among many others, Clarence Thomas is correct, and you and FDR are dead wrong.
LOL!
The Shreveport Rate Case was decided twenty years before FDR, so don't give me any of that "court-packing" claptrap you're fond of using.
The TWO judges of the Ninth are wrong. Read the dissent of the one judge in Raich v Ashcroft who has it right, and who states exactly why the USSC will overturn.
The Shreveport Rate Case was not about "intrastate, non-commercial activity".
The TWO judges of the Ninth are wrong. Read the dissent of the one judge in Raich v Ashcroft who has it right, and who states exactly why the USSC will overturn.
They're wrong, your wrong, and FDR was wrong.
The Shreveport Rate Case was about Congress having the authority to regulate intrastate commerce if it had a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
Congress stated in the CSA of 1970 that intrastate commerce of marijuana has a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
You hope to get around this by saying that the marijuana is provided for free, therefore it's non-economic or non-commercial. Well, like I said, according to the dissenting judge, "As with the wheat consumed as food by the Filburns, plaintiffs are supplying their own needs, here symptom-relieving drugs, without having to resort to the outside marketplace. This deportment obviously has an effect upon interstate commerce." A similar finding was made in Proyect, 101 F.3d.
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.