Replies

This ruling from the highest court is the death of the 9th Circuit Court's ruling in US vs. Stewart, as I see it, based upon precisely the same arguments about the jurisdiction of the US Commerce Clause. Even the Wickard vs. Filburn ruling from 1942 is mentioned in both cases.

Justice Thomas, dissenting in today's medical marijuana ruling: "[The defendants] use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and has no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually everything --- and the Federal government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers."

US vs. Stewart 02-10318 (2003): "... The district court ruled against Stewart’s Commerce Clause argument, reasoning that “the parts, at least, moved in inter-state commerce.” Indeed, some of the machinegun parts did move in interstate commerce. At some level, of course, everything we own is composed of something that once traveled in commerce. This cannot mean that everything is subject to federal regulation under the Commerce Clause, else that constitutional limitation would be entirely meaning-less. As Lopez reminds us, Congress’s power has limits, and we must be mindful of those limits so as not to “ ‘obliterate the distinction between what is national and what is local and create a completely centralized government.’..."

The defendants in the medical marijuana ruling had an even better case than Stewart did: Their marijuana required no construction materials whatsoever.

I think some posters on FR are of the mindset "Embrace Statism and help screw over the hippies!" -- just another addition to the teetering pile of examples on how FreeRepublic has changed radically over the years from it's original intent.

We can't hate the Libertarians this much as to act so stupidly, can we?

The defendants in the medical marijuana ruling had an even better case than Stewart did: Their marijuana required no construction materials whatsoever.

Maybe the water used to feed the plants came from another state!?!?

But seriously, this case is not about marijuana. It's about the absurd and fantastical interpretation of the interstate commerce clause that has 'evolved' over the years to justify any damned thing Congress feels like arrogating under its power. But perhaps this battle has been lost for a long time -- ever since the Whiskey rebellion.