SUPREME COURT RULING: You can arrest those using marijuana for medical purposes

[Hillary's Lovely Legs]

Per Fox News:

The Supreme Court has ruled Medical Marijuana as illegal.

[tacticalogic]

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.

If that's all there is to it, then what was the point of having specifically enumerated powers granted to the federal government, and what purpose does the process of amendment serve?

[dirtboy]

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.

And, as Thomas pointed out in his dissent, there wasn't even any commerce involved whatsoever. So what SCOTUS just upheld was the right of the federal government to regulate just about any ACTIVITY within a state.

[AmishDude]

I think you're making more of marijuana's mystical magical powers than it has. If your mother (interesting the desperate straights all of these people's families are in) were to "lay dying from cancer," I would think med. mar. would not be the best solution. It's a less-stricken person with pain who is said to benefit from med. mar.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

That happens with leagal narcotics all the time Elvis Presley had every DR he dealth with give him narcotics..

How about Rush Limbaugh . . .

[kjam22]

How can man limit what God Himself grants every human being?

By willfully deciding to live with other people. God gave us the right to choose everything, anything, good or bad, all of it. Sure we have God given rights. But if we want to exercise all of them then we need to live on an island somewhere.

[Loud Mime]

I think that this decision by the USSC is an infringement upon state's rights. It's terrible.

I'm not a pot smoker, but am sad to see this grab for power.

[I got the rope]

Why don't the courts rule this way on firearms in California and strike down all their restrictive bans?

Answer:

The court is being selective once again. I agree with Thomas. The courts are out of control folks.

[jwalsh07]

The Supreme Law of the Land is three pronged, the Constitution and the laws and treaties passed by Congress and signed by the executive. But those laws and treaties must fall within the bounds outlined by the Constitution.

The regulation of intrastate commerce by the federal government is extra constitutional and thus outside the bounds of the constitution and it should be struck down by the court.

But a preponderance of judges on the SCOTUS no longer use the constitution to limit the powers of the federal government. In fact they have used the courts to expand the power of the judiciary and in doing so they have simply fanned the flames of dissent in this country.

We should amend the Constitution to have an Interconstitutional Clause requiring courts to stay within those bounds subject to public flogging.

[highball]

There's no federal constitutional right to smoking marijuana. But courts may try to impose that right on other states through the 14th. The exact same can be said.

There is no federal constitutional right to smoke marijuana. And our elected represenatives have voted by the will of the people that this activity is illegal. I think the court ruled correctly in supporting what our duly elected represenatives have legislated.

The Constitution is not a list of our rights. It is quite clear on this point - the Constitution is a list of the powers of the federal government. If it isn't spelled out in the Constitution, it's a right reserved for the people or the states to regulate.

If the federal government can overrule state laws at whim, what's the point of a state legislature?

[Hemingway's Ghost]

By willfully deciding to live with other people. God gave us the right to choose everything, anything, good or bad, all of it. Sure we have God given rights. But if we want to exercise all of them then we need to live on an island somewhere.

Define "rights."

[kjam22]

Why don't the courts rule this way on firearms in California and strike down all their restrictive bans?

The simple answer is because California's laws are not in violation of federal law. Federal law as created by our represenatives.

[jwalsh07]

So what SCOTUS just upheld was the right of the federal government to regulate just about any ACTIVITY within a state.

Consistent with Lawrence.

[dirtboy]

Consistent with Lawrence.

Which is a crock and creates a situation where there is no practical constraint on federal power.

[AmishDude]

For the record:
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Also:
Article 4, Section 1: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Article 4, Section 2, Clause 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

[ex 98C MI Dude]

"If the federal government can overrule state laws at whim, what's the point of a state legislature?"

At this point, what is the point of having the several states at all? Our Federal government has reached outside the bonds placed on it by the Constitution, and grabbed powers reserved by the people and the states. But then, its been doing that since 1861, so why should it change now?

[kjam22]

I would define rights different than you. I don't think there are such thing as "rights". That's just a word that Jefferson used. I think there are choices and consequences... both good and bad. And I think God gave us the ability to chose anything. (God given right as Jefferson would word it) Our government through the will of the people, and sometimes against the will of the people attaches consequences to some of those choices that we won't like.

[jwalsh07]

Which is a crock and creates a situation where there is no practical constraint on federal power.

Whats a crock? The court held in Lawrence that they can reulate anything they want. Same here. Same crap in the same crock.

[tacticalogic]

And, as Thomas pointed out in his dissent, there wasn't even any commerce involved whatsoever. So what SCOTUS just upheld was the right of the federal government to regulate just about any ACTIVITY within a state.

I'm waiting for someone, anyone, who supports this to post something from the majority decision that lays out a constitutional argument for the decision that is defensible from a constitutionally conservative perspective. So far it's all been emotional tripe.

[highball]

I would define rights different than you. I don't think there are such thing as "rights". That's just a word that Jefferson used. I think there are choices and consequences... both good and bad. And I think God gave us the ability to chose anything. (God given right as Jefferson would word it) Our government through the will of the people, and sometimes against the will of the people attaches consequences to some of those choices that we won't like.

You don't believe in rights?

You believe that that the government can regulate any avenue of life it chooses?

That scares me.

[takenoprisoner]

lots of high fives at the doj today!

And now it's time to bust some heads on those dope smokin sickos with cancer and MS!

Break out the grenades boys!