The Ninth Circuit’s Revenge

NRO ^ | June 09, 2005 | Randy Barnett

[Enterprise]

bump

[mc6809e]

I think part of the ruling was "payback": if you support a broad interpretation of the commerce clause, then you have to support it even when you don't like the result.

Of course, most of us would prefer a restricted version of the clause, but then they'd have to shut down 90% of the federal government, wouldn't they?

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

This is what happens when an American state is overrun by lawmakers without morals -- who create and use immoral state laws, then under States Rights doctrine hold them like a gun to the U.S. Constitution's head. Truly a horrid quandary for SCOTUS--and America.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -- John Adams

"The wicked in his pride doth persecute the poor: let them be taken in the devices that they have imagined." -- Psalm 10:2
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=23&chapter=10&verse=2&version=9&context=verse

[onyx]

The pot stores closed in my area right after the announcement of this ruling.

[gr8eman]

Where do you live...New Amsterdam?

[TheOtherOne]

He argued Gonzales v. Raich in the Supreme Court last November.

So he has some bona fides to talk about this case. Actually, a very interesting analysis.

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

"but then they'd have to shut down 90% of the federal government, wouldn't they?"


YOU SAY THAT LIKE IT'S A BAD THING.....

[Skywalk]

What's immoral about marijuana use for the sick?

(when alcohol is legal)

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

"What's immoral about marijuana use for the sick?"

There are alternative painkillers.

In the bigger picture, I see an agenda here: an anti-American strategy to shred the U.S. Constitution via the 10th Amendment. This would be only one salvo in the bigger war.


I don't drink, toke or chew and don't go out with girls that do....

[sourcery]

This is what happens when an American state is overrun by lawmakers without morals

Well, it's certainly true that the lawmakers of California, just like those of other States (and those in Congress) are largely immoral. However, there is absolutely nothing immoral about the Compassionate Use Act. In fact, the only immorality lies with those who would prevent the sick from exercising their liberty right to heal themselves (provided they do not infringe on the rights of others in the process.) And the sin is a cardinal one, for it amounts to murder in some cases.

[sourcery]

There are alternative painkillers.

And the alternative for Peter McWilliams would have been what, exactly?

[mc6809e]

In the bigger picture, I see an agenda here: an anti-American strategy to shred the U.S. Constitution via the 10th Amendment. This would be only one salvo in the bigger war.

Well, the 10th amendment IS part of the constitution.

Besides, being able to smoke pot and tell everyone else to piss off IS hardly anti-american.

It's just like being able to worship and tell the catholic church to piss off if they don't agree.

Live and let live is really what America is about. And with freedom, but still responsible for yourself.

[steve-b]

strategy to shred the U.S. Constitution via the 10th Amendment What an idiotic statement. The Tenth Amendment is part of the Constitution, and the Constitution would never have been ratified without a clear committment to add it (and the rest of the Bill of Rights).

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

What an idiotic statement.

By your reliance on effective, persuasive use of facts, you convince me fully of both the merit of your opinion and your good manners. Clearly you are a learned gentleman of wisdom and couth, a defender of the helpless and gentle with those you deem ill-informed and whose sad plight you seek to remedy. It should be immediately clear to all that you, by your above public remark of respectful repartee and rebuttal to my own lowly opinion, that surely you are of exceptional stock, noble and a leader and champion of millions. A living example thou art, Sir, of The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin and How To Win Friends and Influence People; your prodigy for beneficial and educational cameraderie with the downtrodden and ignorant is breathtaking. Vividly more knowledgeable than mine, as the heavens are to the earth, is thy knowledge of the United States Constitution and the agenda of the Current Communist Goals and thy opinion unto mine.

NOT.

I'm sure you no more desire to shred me than the 9th Circuit Court desires to shred the Constitution, as later amended.

/s

I invite you to take a long hard look at your tagline, then your mirror.

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

I don't have the AP at hand but as I remember this decision was based on interstate commerce.

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

I caught the IC aspect. The States Rights aspect is relevant as well.

[Oberon]

There are alternative painkillers.

Well, if marijuana use for the sick is immoral, why is the use of alternative painkillers permissible?

Those other painkillers are also subject to abuse, and frequently taken recreationally.

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

CSM -

...Justice Stevens and the other majority justices saw the case as substantially similar to a landmark 1942 commerce-clause decision called Wickard v. Filburn, in which the high court upheld federal regulation of wheat production on a family farm even when the wheat was grown for home consumption.

"In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity," Stevens writes.

"In assessing the scope of Congress' Commerce Clause authority, the court need not determine whether respondents' activities, taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce in fact, but only whether a 'rational basis' exists for so concluding," he says..."

This is a states rights case.

[houeto]

who create and use immoral state laws

You are referring to?