Posted on 06/09/2005 9:54:50 PM PDT by neverdem
This has been my knock on Scalia all along. He talks the talk on federalism, but has no problem doing the Wickard when it suits his views. Plus, he seldom if ever met a search and seizure he didn't agree with, so he is weak in that regard as well.
Thomas's dissent was a thing of beauty. Maybe we can get Janice Rogers Brown on SCOTUS along with him and then really drive the libs bonkers.
Raich ping
That is a truly stunning statement. Probably the largest problem in this country today is the fact that the 10th Amendment has become nearly a dead letter. Putting the 10th back into prominence would curtail many of the federal abuses of power that we see today.
But you see the 10th as a means to SHRED the Constitution? Woof.
Maybe a living Constitution as seen by libs and big-government conservatives. But not to originalist conservatives who realize that government is not the answer to everything.
The precedent this sets goes far beyond Wickard. Anything is now subject to Federal control.
I do not see this as a major issue the media is portraying.
Essentially the states tried to regulate a "medication."
If the states were to have had merely made it legal to grow it without the medical pretext then the case would have been different.
The court essentially called the states on the absurdity of marajana as a "medicial" product.
It's not the proper role of SCOTUS to decide if something that is not interstate and not commerce is absurd. This was a state matter that SCOTUS warped Wickard and the Necessary and Proper clause to justify federal jurisidiction over every activity in the land.
Ah, draw your conclusion and work backwards from there.
Oh, well then by all means, there ought to be a law. And a Federal one at that.
And yet while Adams was alive, there was not a federal WOD, WOI, WOT, WOP, and any other 'war' the national government has started. Why when Adams was alive, the plant in question was not considered illegal. How is that? The Tenth Amendment is clear. No power belonging explicitly to the national government belongs to the states or the citizens thereof
Perhaps it's time to quit worrying about which judges will make activist decisions for 'our' side and look for judges that rule based solely on the Constitution and the limitations on the national government. Of course don't expect a Republican or Democrat to nominate someone like that very often. I'm seriously disappointed in Scalia.
> > Oh, well then by all means, there ought to be a law. And a Federal one at that. < <
"Oh, well then by all means, there ought to be a law. And a Federal one at that."
There is. Formerly known as Blue Laws and varying from state to state, until the Conspiratorial Overarching National Federal Omnibus Morality Legislation (CONFORM) Act was instituted, in 1984.... /sarc.
As opposed to Cole's Law, which is thinly sliced cabbage....
Well, can't have that in this Brave New World, now can we?
"Probably the largest problem in this country today is the fact that the 10th Amendment has become nearly a dead letter."
Agreed, but still, like a buried World War II bomb, still potentially potent....
"The general scheme of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 as related to wheat is to control the volume moving in interstate and foreign commerce in order to avoid surpluses and shortages and the consequent abnormally low or high wheat prices and obstructions to commerce. Within prescribed limits and by prescribed standards the Secretary of Agriculture is directed to ascertain and proclaim each year a national acreage allotment for the next crop of wheat, which is then apportioned to the states and their counties, and is eventually broken up into allotments for individual farms.
Thus speaketh the Supreme Soviet of the New Deal.
Wickard and the current case have this much in common: Both were about a ridiculous overreach of Federal Government Power and SCOTUS went along with it in both cases.
If I take these two decisions and Griswold, I can't grow wheat to feed myself or grow grass to smoke, but I have a fundamental right to a rubber. (I know Griswold was versus Connecticut, but the decision as given would prevent Congressional banning of rubbers also).
Now that Republicans are (mostly) in charge in Washington, it's pretty interesting that some on the LEFT are all of a sudden Federalists. Frankly, though, I don't think that's the issue. I don't want tyranny in a statehouse any more than I want it in Washington.
Immoral state laws:
I'm referring to such things as the Massachusetts 'gay marriage' law, Maine's new no-parental-notification for teen abortion legislation, Nevada's human trafficking--oops I mean prostitution--laws....
Not all these are necessarily aimed at, or can be aimed at, SCOTUS and the teardown of the USA, of course. Some definitely ARE.
OTOH, the letter of the law does not make a legal act moral. Khan, Stalin and Mao had plenty of laws.
So since Nevada makes prositution legal, the feds should have the power to stop that?
Too many of those who live in Nevada and elsewhere have put pocketbock or personal gratification or whatever above principles. And when a State goes the way of the world, it cannot help but influence the rest of the federal body.
"We Hold These Truths to be self-evident...." Our country was built on moral premises. Forsake those and everything becomes a game of what's legal--where--when--according to the LETTER of the law rather than vice versa as originally intended.
So? Don't live in Massachusetts, Maine, or Nevada. I don't agree with those laws either however as a conservative I'm not about to approve of the national government overriding those laws either. Federalism, although for the most part broken thanks to Republicans and Democrats, is about the only saving grace we have against the national government
Yes I suppose that's why prostitution has been legalized in the other 49 states of the union....
"We Hold These Truths to be self-evident...." Our country was built on moral premises. Forsake those and everything becomes a game of what's legal--where--when--according to the LETTER of the law rather than vice versa as originally intended.
Yes we hold these truths to be self evident. The truth of natural law and rights, that each individual's rights extend to themselves as long as they cause no harm of another individual. However, the limitation on this is at the state level as the 10th Amendment gives the respective states the right to pass laws such as they see fit.
The federal government regulates medication.
This was a case of medication.
If the states wanted to legalize it as a NONmedication then your argument would stand.
The feds overreach here. Morphine is medication. And you can get it prescribed under federal law.
Marijuana cannot be prescribed, period.
But it's a plant. You can grow it like tomatoes. People in California grew it and consumed it, without commerce and without the plant crossing state lines, under the auspices of state law.
And the SCOTUS decision, and specifically Scalia's concurrence, dealt with marijuana as a "fungible" commodity as the reason to allow federal control of it. Scalia argued there was no way to tell medical marijuana apart from illegal weed, even though states track booze within their borders with stamps and controls. So the argument basically boils down to, do we think the feds should be able to ban pot, and let's make up some reason why.
Which is activism.
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.