Posted on 11/12/2004 5:01:33 PM PST by Wolfie
Hi noob.
Are you a recycled Drug Warrior that wore out your welcome?
Oops. Don't post before coffee. (Another drug dependency.)
Interesting analogy. In fact, the reasoning used to expand the commerce clause could be expanded to child raising, since your son or daughter very well may grow up to move to another state and affect trade there.
Did the civil war erase the IX and X amendments?
Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the PEOPLE.
Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the PEOPLE.
"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God?" --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia, 1782.
GOD MADE HERB
GOD SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD
GOD GAVE IT TO MAN
Genesis 1:11
Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth"; and it was so.
Genesis 1:12
And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:29
And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.
Anyone wanting to get the federal back into confines of it's constitutional boundaries better be paying attention, too.
It is.
James Madison to Joseph C. Cabell
13 Feb. 1829Letters 4:14--15
For a like reason, I made no reference to the "power to regulate commerce among the several States." I always foresaw that difficulties might be started in relation to that power which could not be fully explained without recurring to views of it, which, however just, might give birth to specious though unsound objections. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it. Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.
Yeah, seems Madison didn't seal that leak nearly tight enough, as some folks at the time warned. I love Madison, but "general welfare" and "interstate commerce" have hurt us bad.
They didn't hurt us bad until the New Deal, which was essentially a coup against the Constitution.
FDR is our Hitler, a man who's memory should be consigned to a special hell, and whos works should be undone with the assiduousness of the destruction of the gas chambers. Those who justify government powers today on the basis of New Deal novelties are no better than Nazis, and should be lined up and shot, as they have no legitimacy whatsoever.
Revolutionary indeed, at least in the post-New Deal America. Here's the precedent which the Bush administration is using to justify keeping homegrown weed a federal matter:
Wickard v FilburnIMO, this medical marijuana case is the most important case that'll be decided this year. At issue is where the line limiting federal power will be drawn. No doubt Rehnquist will author the opinion. This decision will pretty much be the grand finale of his federalism jurisprudence, and I can't wait to read it. I'm afraid the Court's gonna go along with the Bush administration on this though. It's too bad, really.
317 U.S. 111 (1942)Abstract
Argued: October 13, 1942
Decided: November 9, 1942Facts of the Case
Filburn was a small farmer in Ohio. He was given a wheat acreage allotment of 11.1 acres under a Department of Agriculture directive which authorized the government to set production quotas for wheat. Filburn harvested nearly 12 acres of wheat above his allotment. He claimed that he wanted the wheat for use on his farm, including feed for his poultry and livestock. Fiburn was penalized. He argued that the excess wheat was unrelated to commerce since he grew it for his own use.
Question Presented
Is the amendment subjecting Filburn to acreage restrictions in violation of the Constitution because Congress has no power to regulate activities local in nature?
Conclusion
According to Filburn, the act regulated production and consumption, which are local in character. The rule laid down by Justice Jackson is that even if an activity is local and not 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.'"
If they do, there's going to be some hairs split and re-split finding a bright line between Wickard and Lopez or Morrison to base it on.
I think you're right. The left side of the Court won't jeopardize the New Deal Commerce Clause and I expect Scalia and Rehnquist will find a "compelling government interest" in controlling drugs. As for O'Connor, who knows?
Clarence Thomas is the only solid vote I see against the Feds.
Now, say the Court rules for the Feds. That does not mean that the CA law is voided, correct? IOW, such a ruling means the Feds can make arrests, but CA can still have the program. Is that your understanding?
Justice Thomas, concurring.
The Court today properly concludes that the Commerce Clause does not grant Congress the authority to prohibit gun possession within 1,000 feet of a school, as it attempted to do in the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101-647, 104 Stat. 4844.
Although I join the majority, I write separately to observe that our case law has drifted far from the original understanding of the Commerce Clause.
In a future case, we ought to temper our Commerce Clause jurisprudence in a manner that both makes sense of our more recent case law and is more faithful to the original understanding of that Clause.
Well the Court excels at hairsplitting. Anyway, this hair's been split before. Look at Lopez:
Section 922(q) is not an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated. It cannot, therefore, be sustained under our cases upholding regulations of activities that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction, which viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce.The Court will likely say that the opposite holds true with regard to medical marijuana, i.e., federal control of intrastate weed is an "essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, and the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated." Heck, the Controlled Substances Act says essentially the same thing right in the Congressional Findings section. Federal control will therefore be "sustained under [the Court's] cases upholding regulations of activities that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction, which viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce." That means, sustained under Wickard.
I think it'll be unanimous. Thomas will again concur with a disclaimer.
IOW, such a ruling means the Feds can make arrests, but CA can still have the program. Is that your understanding?
Pretty much. But expect a major crackdown by the feds once this is settled. CA may still have the program, but I doubt there'll be many participants.
I have to agree. The only thing that has kept it alive so long has been it no going before the Supreme Court.
IMHO, Thomas is going to have to do some backpedaling from Lopez to concur:
"The majority opinion correctly applies our decision in United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549 (1995), and I join it in full. I write separately only to express my view that the very notion of a substantial effects test under the Commerce Clause is inconsistent with the original understanding of Congress powers and with this Courts early Commerce Clause cases. By continuing to apply this rootless and malleable standard, however circumscribed, the Court has encouraged the Federal Government to persist in its view that the Commerce Clause has virtually no limits. Until this Court replaces its existing Commerce Clause jurisprudence with a standard more consistent with the original understanding, we will continue to see Congress appropriating state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."
Wickard v Filburn is the major point of departure from the orignal understanding, and it is indeed a case of Congress appropriating state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce. I don't see Thomas as the backpedaling type.
Congress neglected to substantiate their finding of substantial effects in the Gun Free Schools Act. In Lopez they had extensive documentation to support the claim, but the court didn't buy it.
When the CSA was passed, the standard was that a finding of "substantial effect" by Congress was sufficient in and of itself, and the court would defer to Congress on that finding. Wickard v Filburn gave Congress a blank check. It's time to close the account.
I totally agree. I just don't think it's gonna happen. Hope I'm wrong.
Why?
Hopefully CA will wise up, and de-centralize their program. No names, no cards, no records.
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.