Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: rhombus

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/17jan20061050/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-623.pdf

Way at the bottom...


533 posted on 01/17/2006 11:16:44 AM PST by OXENinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 527 | View Replies ]


To: OXENinFLA
Thanks for the link. Good stuff. Wish I could cut and paste the text of the final paragraph...

Thomas wrote:

"...The relevance of such considerations was at its zenith in Raich when we considered whether the CSA could be applied to the intrastate possession of a controlled substance consistent with the limited federal powers enumerated by the Constitution. Such considerations have little, if any, relevance where, as here, were are merely presented with a question of statutory interpretation and not the extent of constitutionally permissible federal power. This is particularly true where, as here, we are interpreting broad, straightforward language, within a statutory framework that a majority of this Court has concluded is so comprehensive that it necessarily nullifies the States' "traditional...powers...to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens....The court's reliance upon the constitutional principles that it rejected in Raich -- albeit under the guise of statutory interpretation -- is perplexing to say the least. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent."

550 posted on 01/17/2006 11:37:03 AM PST by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 533 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson