Posted on 07/01/2006 7:19:16 AM PDT by LouAvul
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A recent Supreme Court ruling that Congress can ban homegrown marijuana for medical use in California led Friday to the reinstatement of an Arizona man's overturned conviction for having homemade machine guns.
Prosecutors in both cases invoked the Constitution's interstate commerce clause, despite the fact that the cases centered on items that were homemade, or homegrown, and didn't involve commerce or crossing state lines. The courts ruled, however, that the items still can affect interstate commerce and therefore can be regulated by federal law.
In the machine gun case, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday reinstated the convictions of Robert Wilson Stewart, 67, of Mesa, Ariz. The three-judge panel reversed its own previous decision to overturn the convictions because he never tried to sell his weapons or transport them over state lines.
Federal agents raided Stewart's house in June 2000 and found five machine guns, which Stewart argued did not violate the congressionally mandated ban on certain assault weapons because they were homemade and not for sale. The appellate court initially agreed with Stewart and overturned his convictions in 2003, ruling the interstate commerce clause did not apply.
The three-judge panel, however, was ordered by the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision after the justices ruled in 2005 that the federal government could prosecute medical marijuana users and their suppliers even if their activity was confined to California.
In the marijuana case, brought by Oakland resident Angel Raich, the majority of Supreme Court justices ruled that the interstate commerce clause makes California's medical marijuana law illegal. The court said homegrown marijuana confined to the state still can affect the entire national market for the drug, allowing for federal regulation.
The same rationale was applied by the appeals court in the homemade machine gun case.
(Excerpt) Read more at modbee.com ...
"He was allowed to do this, but that required him to either store it or pay a "penalty" of 49 cents per bushel".
[A typically bureaucratic mess. He violated the terms of 'the allotment' and should not have gotten the 'support price'.]
"He refused, saying that Congress did not have the power to regulate his own personal use."
They didn't. -- Nor did Congress have the power to pay him 3X world market price.
The USSC should have ignored the whole mess on that basis, but instead compounded the congressional violation by committing a constitutional violation of their own -- in agreeing that the power to regulate includes the 'power to prohibit'.
I disagree. The court set a standard of "substantial effect" not "somewhat effect".
Even when they've agreed not to do so in exchange for receiving three times the world price per bushel?
Filburn was allotted 11 acres. He could have sold the wheat from 7 acres, for example, and kept the wheat from 4. He didn't. He got greedy.
That was the original use, yes. Are you saying that's the only way the Commerce Clause may be used -- as a limit on the states from creating barriers to entry?
Do you contend/support the view that the constitution is a living document, thus not bound by it's original intent?
Filburn was allotted 11 acres. He could have sold the wheat from 7 acres, for example, and kept the wheat from 4. He didn't. He got greedy.
"Agreement" implies a voluntary condition that did not exist.
Isn't that what the power was granted for, and understood to be for that purpose by the States at the time of ratification?
paulsen, -- do you contend/support the view that the constitution is a living document, thus not bound by it's original intent?
paulsens entire posting history on this forum is a record of his support for 'majority rule' style democracy, -- one which ignores constitutional restraint or original intent.
Paulsen, do you have the guts to attempt an honest answer or rebuttal?
>> "The substantial effects test is no test at all - it is a blank check"
-Justice Clarence Thomas
The whole idea is about as screwed up as a soup sandwich. <<
I agree with you and I agree with Justice Thomas. And I see this as a continuing, serious problem.
>>They didn't. -- Nor did Congress have the power to pay him 3X world market price.
The USSC should have ignored the whole mess on that basis, but instead compounded the congressional violation by committing a constitutional violation of their own -- in agreeing that the power to regulate includes the 'power to prohibit'.<<
I'm not on their side - but I'm acknowledging that the wheat decision sounds an awful like pot and machine gun cases and what I thought was outrageous new violation of the constitution is in fact a repeat of "settled law."
That's true. And if this was about 12 acres, I would wholeheartedly agree.
But you're not saying that Filburn can do this and no one else can, are you? I mean, if the court ruled the other way -- if the court said that Filburn was allowed to grow as much as he wanted for personal use -- certainly that ruling would apply to other farmers. Yes?
How long before they were all doing it? Wouldn't that then have a substantial effect on the market? What then would happen to Congress' ability to regulate the interstate commerce of wheat?
That's why the court said in their opinion, "That appellee's own contribution to the demand for wheat may be trivial by itself is not enough to remove him from the scope of federal regulation where, as here, his contribution, taken together with that of many others similarly situated, is far from trivial."
"I can see extend in that to home schooling - if millions of families did that then less textbooks from some companies would be purchased by schools.
True. But Congress is not regulating textbooks.
But let's say they were. Let's say the textbook industry was shown to be vital to our national security. That this particular industry must be protected and regulated.
I sincerely doubt that the U.S. Supreme Court would look at the elimination of home schooling as "Necessary and Proper" to save the industry. IF (big IF) Congress was indeed regulating textbooks, I would guess they would pass a law saying that home schoolers must use the same textbooks as public schools.
Plus, all of that is assuming the public will allow Congress to regulate the textbook industry in such a manner to begin with. Congress regulated assault weapons -- ten years later that was allowed to expire because the people no longer wanted it.
We are a self-governing nation. We the people tell Congress what to regulate. They don't tell us.
I don't connect the two.
First, yes, the U.S. Constitution is a living document. By that I mean that it is not fixed and may be modified by the amendment process.
Second, original intent means less to me than original meaning. Some people look at original intent and interpret that as "sole" intent -- I disagree.
For the first 100 years, the Commerce Clause was only used to remove state barriers. That doesn't mean that's all it was ever intended to do -- if so, the Founding Fathers would have written it differently.
The original meaning of "to regulate" goes well beyond the original intent of "to remove barriers". "To regulate" was used by Thomas Jefferson to prohibit trade with Europe in 1807 and to prohibit alcohol sales to the Indians in 1803. So "to regulate" includes to prohibit, even though it wasn't originally used that way among the states.
It's disingenuous for you to conclude that the U.S. Constitution is a living document when it is applied beyond its original intent but still well within its original meaning.
During a search by the ATF of the Stewart Residence, agents discovered thirty-one firearms, including five machine guns which Stewart had machined and assembled. In United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Stewart was convicted of one count for being a felon in possession of a firearm, and five counts for unlawful possession of a machinegun and of possessing several unregistered, home-made machine guns. On June 3, 2002, Stewart was sentenced to five years in federal prison. Stewart appealed his conviction claiming it exceeds Congress's commerce clause power and violates the Second Amendment, and for possession of a firearm by a felon on Second Amendment grounds."
From Wikipedia.
The point being, he had choices.
In my opinion, no. If the Commerce Clause was ONLY to be used that way among the states, it would have been written differently. But the states were lumped in with foreign nations and the Indian tribes, and Jefferson prohibited trade with those two groups.
I have no idea what the states understood. No one told Jefferson that the Commerce Clause didn't allow him to prohibit commerce -- not even his Secretary of State, James Madison, who wrote the damn thing.
Thank you for pointing out the obvious truth that the whole scheme is an exercise in dishonest word games.
And you reject out of hand anything that might lead you to have one. Wanton ignorance is no excuse.
L
Can you come up with a single piece of historical evidence to support that? There is plenty of evidence that it was intended to remove state barriers, it's use for that was explicitly discussed and recorded. Can you provide any reference from the convention records or supporting documents that describes the use of this power for any other purpose?
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.