Posted on 06/06/2005 7:16:18 AM PDT by Hillary's Lovely Legs
Per Fox News:
The Supreme Court has ruled Medical Marijuana as illegal.
I'm not asserting that this is such a bad thing, but I can't see any barrier to it.
I noted that in another thread on this topic. Racist Democrats insinuate, if not flat out state, that Thomas is a moron. Anyone reading this decent will disagree strongly. Of course, some will say it was a clerk who actually wrote it...
Massachusets, Oregon, Hawaii.... you're ducking the question.
This has nothing to do with the Supremacy Clause. The question is whether the federal government has the CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to regulare intrastate commerce. Despite the Constitution limiting the federal government to regulating commerce between the several state, the Court today, once again, rules that it includes commerce wholly within a state.
No, the Court based its opinion on a atrocious pro-New Deal case which expanded the interstate commerce clause to include just about anything.
That's pro New Deal court ruling.
The state government.
Which another poster handled.
I am sorry. I know you're a good guy.
Bingo. And Full Faith and Credit would lead to adopting it in all 50, which is why the push for a constitutional amendment.
The problem with the Medical Marijuana law is that its just too easy for "anybody" who wants to smoke it to find an unethical doctor....pay him cash....and get a prescription for it.
Those who are breaking the law have ruined it for the patients who REALLY need it.
Congress is the will of the people -- for better or worse.
Of course! Rule #1 states one cannot be a non-white conservative.
I stand corrected. I should have known better than to just read a media account instead of the ruling itself.
14th amendment has nothing to do with this. These are state laws. States have all kinds of laws that differ from one another. You don't have a right to medical pot in these states as a CONSTITUTIONAL matter. The same sex marriage issue is a problem because there are efforts to argue it's constitutionally compelled.
That's exactly right. And they come up for re-election on a regular basis.
What Congress does can be undone. Every two years you have a chance to change its composition. Simply elect sympathetic legislators and prove your case to the rest of us.
What unelected life-tenured federal judges and justices do on the other hand cannot be so easily undone. That's why the federal bench is supposed to stick to interpretation and let the people choose to undo through their legislatures what any particular judge or justice might think is an unwise or foolish law.
And, BTW, Congress isn't "usurping" any power of the federal courts when Congress debates and legislates. The fact that any informed American would think otherwise is an alarming indictment of lack of basic political awareness in out country.
And if the people tomorrow decided to take your home without compensation, and Congress passed a law allowing it, then I guess that would be OK with you, since Congress was just reflecting the will of the people.
I'm confused..........conflicted..........too ill informed to comment. Rush might help me figure this out, but for goodness sake, get on the phone and help him!!
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.