Posted on 06/06/2005 4:41:40 AM PDT by gieriscm
The Court relied, as the Justice Department had urged in its appeal, upon the Court's sweeping endorsement of federal Commerce Clause power in the 1942 case of Wickard v. Filburn.Still no opinion online."The case," Stevens wrote, "comes down to the claim that a locally cultivated product that is used domestically rather than sold on the open market is not subject to federal regulation. Given the Act's findings and the undisputed magnitude of the commercial market for marijuana, Wickard and its progency foreclose that claim."
Any word on how each Justice voted?
When the US has more laws on the books than any other civilization in history, how can you not break one?
Well, you can always try.
Come on Court, post it already! I hate this waiting.
Not the War on Drugs, the War on Federalism and the War on the States just hit a new level. Screw it; I give up.
That would make sense if the Constitution, and the history of the republic began in 1939 (or it's future extends beyond the next election).
It WAS legal in 10 states. Guess State laws just don't count. The Supremes ride again! This is ridiculous. It is about the Futile War on Drugs and Interstate Commerce and States Rights.
I can just see it now." Terminal Cancer victim gets twenty years for smoking marijuana. Family and doctor also go to prison." WOW, do I feel safer now!
Where is this vitriolic pursuing of the War on Drugs emenating from?
Nothing like a little more judicial activism trampling on State Rights yet again.
I'd bet Thomas is among them.
Why? Is Thomas a pot head?
Justice Scalia was the sixth vote, writing a concurrence in the judgment. Justice O'Connor wrote the principal dissent, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Thomas. Justice Thomas wrote a separate dissent.Thomas' dissent should be a good one.
Thomas is a strict constructionist, and an originalist. He believes that the powers granted to the federal government by the representatives of the States were fixed at the time they were granted as they were understood by those that granted them, and remain unchanged until altered by amendment. He doesn't buy this "living document" crap we've been force fed.
Give it a rest. This case isn't about pot. It's about Federalism, Commerce Clause, and the New Deal Court's horrendous Wickard decision. Get a clue.
What did Cicero say?
More law, less justice.
In any event, the matter appears to be dead for some time.
What an interesting development. The socially liberal Supreme Court majority, famous for finding rights at the drop of a hat, refused to find one in the marijuana patch.
The pot heads still have real options. Will they pursue them or will they sit in a corner and pout?
Opinion by Stevens, joined by Kennedy, Breyer, Ginsberg, and Souter.
Concurrence by Scalia.
Dissent by O'Connor, joined by Rehnquist and Thomas.
Separate dissent by Thomas.
They protect their own power. Hanging onto the "living document" principle of Constitutional interpretation is the key to that power. Adopting a strict constructionist view of the Constitution and deferring to the intent of those that wrote it places the authority with the document, and removes it from them. Wickard v. Filburn was the watershed case that established that control, and they will not do anything to erode or threaten it. They thank you for your support.
Actually, it's the Big Government, anti-Federalism minority plus Kennedy. Aren't you familiar with Morrison and Lopez and the many other recent pro-federalism decisions that've come out of the Rehnquist Court? I suggest you read the opinions instead of continuing to make a fool out of yourself.
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.