Posted on 06/06/2005 4:41:40 AM PDT by gieriscm
Please. Slam dunk for the Feds. Our whole way of life depends on the Commerce Clause Uber Alles.
ping
I hope so, but I can't see it. The 'justice system' depends on making criminals of marijuana users for their income. I can't see them cutting off that source of income.
Terrorist war criminals in a military camp have more rights than marijuana smokers right now.
Well if they apply the Commerce clause here what's stopping them from using it in gun laws?
If the commerce clause applies to personal gardening, then it applies to anything at all that is sold in more than one state.
FRs favorite Commerce Clause cheerleader robertpaulsen, told me sometime back that my tomato and pepper garden should be subject to similar controls, if Congress so chose.
They could be.
Enter Roscoe Filburn, an Ohio dairy and poultry farmer, who raised a small quantity of winter wheat — some to sell, some to feed his livestock, and some to consume. In 1940, under authority of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, the central government told Mr. Filburn that for the next year he would be limited to planting 11 acres of wheat and harvesting 20 bushels per acre. He harvested 12 acres over his allotment for consumption on his own property. When the government fined him, Mr. Filburn refused to pay.
Wickard v. Filburn got to the Supreme Court, and in 1942, the justices unanimously ruled against the farmer. The government claimed that if Mr. Filburn grew wheat for his own use, he would not be buying it — and that affected interstate commerce. It also argued that if the price of wheat rose, which is what the government wanted, Mr. Filburn might be tempted to sell his surplus wheat in the interstate market, thwarting the government's objective. The Supreme Court bought it.
The Court's opinion must be quoted to be believed:
"[The wheat] supplies a need of the man who grew it which would otherwise be reflected by purchases in the open market. Home-grown wheat in this sense competes with wheat in commerce. "
I am praying that Rationality rules on this one. Let's put the first nail in the coffin on our Lost War On Drugs. I want my tax dollars to go to border control, defense and our infrastructure, not marijuana plants. And it seems that medical marijuana is a no brainer. By the way, Great Britain is way ahead of us on research on developing marijuana plants that are more powerful at eliminating the pain and nausea that marijuana eases. My guess is that the pharmaceutical companies will not oppose medical marijuana cause they want to get in on this research and production.
I stood corrected when you pointed out that there is an exception for personal use.
Now, you want to be a prick and keep bringing it up, fine.
Can the court rule any other way?
The courts have been repeatedly slamming the government on interstate commerce. I hope this ruling is more of the same since it will have a direct impact on the Stewart case out of the 9th circuit.
I'm willing to let the pot heads get their way on this if it helps restore the Constitution... especially the 2nd Amendment.
Mike
Free access to marijuana is a matter of religious faith to you?
That's sad, but believeable.
This, IMO is wholly different from small personal use gardening. If there is no commercial enterprise, there is no commerce and there has certainly not been a deal struck to receive subsidised pricing. If there is no commerce, then the "commerce clause" is moot. This idea that by removing myself from the market for tomatoes, I thereby "effect" the market pricing of such, is just another end run on what should be quite clearly, out of the fedgov's grasp.
If the SC actually rules in the fedgov's favor here, than they have essentially given them carte blanche. Game over.
Are you in favor of it then?
Which is why its a slam dunk for the Feds. Bottom line is that it was a huge mistake to give the meaning of the Constitution over to 9 lifetime political appointees.
Don't worry - his sentiment is neatly cancelled out by those to whom the supremacy of government authority is a matter of religious faith ... and action!
Excuse me.
That was completely uncalled for. But, I guess I should expect no less from you.
You did stand corrected, but prior to that correction (and it wasn't me BTW), you were all for it.
Yes, I am praying for a rational policy that will end in less suffering for those who need medical marijuana, and less suffering for the tragedies and waste and crime of making marijuana illegal. Just as I would have prayed for an end to Prohibition and the suffering that it caused. I will also pray for those who have addiction problems that they receive the help they need.
If the Court finds against the defendant in Raich, that means that Interstate Commerce will be carried out to the extreme even if it means violating every Amendment of the Constitution. If the court decides for Raich, then they decide the opposite for Stewart, then there is a disparity in the law that can be challenged...
The case is all about interstate commerce... that is the key.
Mike
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.