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 ...
Hey, if you know what the states understood about the Commerce Clause let's hear it. I hope you'll understand that I'll need some documentation on that and not just your opinion.
You've seen Madison's writings on the matter more times than I can count, and want no part of it beyond trying to render it incomprehensible by trying to give meanings to the words they don't and have never had.
The Commerce Clause is self-explanatory. It says to regulate commerce with foreign nations, with the Indian tribes and among the several states. "To regulate" applies to all three areas, does it not? Plain as day. Well, "to regulate" commerce was used by Jefferson to prohibit commerce with the Indian tribes AND with foreign nations.
Are you saying that one word has three different meanings when used in the same sentence? What would be your reaction to a U.S. Supreme Court that said "shall not" in the second amendment had a different meaning than "shall not" in the body of the U.S. Constitution? You'd go ape.
Can you provide any reference from the convention records or supporting documents that limits the use of this power to removing barriers?
Madison is not "the states". I'll ask you again. If you know what the states understood about the Commerce Clause let's hear it.
If anybody is "rejecting out of hand" it's you when I ask you to support your statements.
So the Feds appealed the Appeals Court decision (which initially ruled in defendends favor on commerce clause grounds), and the Supreme Court remanded it back to the 9th Circuit Court with admonishment respecting stare decisis regarding U.S. vs. Willard (as it applies to the marijuana case).
The 9th Circuit Court rules in favor of Fed Gov on the basis of the commerce clause, instead of Miller vs Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (1894), whereby the 2nd and 4th Ammendments did not in and of themselves limit state action. In other words, the State can act to regulate firearms (not the Fed Gov) acording to the 10th Ammendment and in that the Militia is regulated by the State (not the Fed).
robertpaulsen: First, yes, the U.S. Constitution is a living document. 133
Recorded.
robertpaulsen: By that I mean that it is not fixed and may be modified by the amendment process. 133
As in 1917 congress knew that in order to keep within the limitations of the constitution to manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors (prohibit alcohol) they had to amend the constitution with the 18th amendment. Like wise, in 1933 congress knew that in order to conform to the constitution to repeal the 18th amendment that prohibited alcohol they had to amend the constitution with the 21st amendment.
The original meaning of "to regulate" goes well beyond the original intent of "to remove barriers".
Only according to the erroneous living document theory.
"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.
That bogus argument of yours has been refuted by tpaine. Europe is not a State of the Union. More on this at*.
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.
It's dishonest to use the commerce clause to prohibit marijuana (or any substance for that matter) when it isn't within the limits of the commerce clause or the constitution to do that... And can only be prohibited by amendment to the constitution as was the necessary legal way to prohibit alcohol.
* James Madison, Federalist, no. 42, 283--8522 Jan. 1788
The defect of power in the existing confederacy, to regulate the commerce between its several members, is in the number of those which have been clearly pointed out by experience. To the proofs and remarks which former papers have brought into view on this subject, it may be added, that without this supplemental provision, the great and essential power of regulating foreign commerce, would have been incompleat, and ineffectual. A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out, to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter, and the consumers of the former. We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquility. To those who do not view the question through the medium of passion or of interest, the desire of the commercial States to collect in any form, an indirect revenue from their uncommercial neighbours, must appear not less impolitic than it is unfair; since it would stimulate the injured party, by resentment as well as interest, to resort to less convenient channels for their foreign trade. But the mild voice of reason, pleading the cause of an enlarged and permanent interest, is but too often drowned before public bodies as well as individuals, by the clamours of an impatient avidity for immediate and immoderate gain.
The necessity of a superintending authority over the reciprocal trade of confederated States has been illustrated by other examples as well as our own. In Switzerland, where the Union is so very slight, each Canton is obliged to allow to merchandizes, a passage through its jurisdiction into other Cantons, without an augmentation of the tolls. In Germany, it is a law of the empire, that the Princes and States shall not lay tolls or customs on bridges, rivers, or passages, without the consent of the Emperor and Diet; though it appears from a quotation in an antecedent paper, that the practice in this as in many other instances in that confederacy, has not followed the law, and has produced there the mischiefs which have been foreseen here. Among the restraints imposed by the Union of the Netherlands, on its members, one is, that they shall not establish imports disadvantageous to their neighbors, without the general permission.
The regulation of commerce with the Indian tribes is very properly unfettered from two limitations in the articles of confederation, which render the provision obscure and contradictory. The power is there restrained to Indians, not members of any of the States, and is not to violate or infringe the legislative right of any State within its own limits. What description of Indians are to be deemed members of a State, is not yet settled; and has been a question of frequent perplexity and contention in the Foederal Councils. And how the trade with Indians, though not members of a State, yet residing within its legislative jurisdiction, can be regulated by an external authority, without so far intruding on the internal rights of legislation, is absolutely incomprehensible. This is not the only case in which the articles of confederation have inconsiderately endeavored to accomplish impossibilities; to reconcile a partial sovereignty in the Union, with compleat sovereignty in the States; to subvert a mathematical axiom, by taking away a part, and letting the whole remain.
The Founders' Constitution
Volume 2, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 (Commerce), Document 9 http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_3_commerces9.html
The University of Chicago Press
Damn, Zon, you were close. If only Madison had said, "The sole object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States ..."
Too bad. Hey, we have some nice parting gifts for you backstage. Don't let the door hit ya.
I take it you're not going to be convinced by anything short of hearing the ground itself speak.
Absent any other articulation of an object of the power, this is the only one there is unless you can produce anything else.
"The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the Constituton of the United States."
In other words, the second amendment only protects the citizen from federal infringement. It then says that if you want protection from your fellow citizens of your right to "bear(ing) arms for a lawful purposes", you need to refer to local law.
Congress regulated assault weapons --
Congress unconstitutionally prohibited 'assault weapons', and people rightly ignored the ban.
ten years later that was allowed to expire because the people no longer wanted it.
They didn't "want it" to begin with, and refused to abide by it, necessitating a face saving expiration.
We are a self-governing nation. We the people tell Congress what to regulate. They don't tell us.
We are a self-governing nation under Constitutional restraints. -- We the people tell Congress what to regulate within Consitutional bounds. -- All of us are bound by the rule of constitutional law.
Get a clue paulsen.
Stewart was caught with machine guns. He said the federal government didn't have jurisdiction over his machine guns since they weren't interstate commerce. Initially, the lower court agreed.
At the conclusion of the Raich marijuana case where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that even if the marijuana wasn't involved in interstate commerce the federal government still had jurisdiction, the lower court then changed its mind and said that also applies to machine guns.
The key point is that he did not limit it to that one object.
Sounds like all the pot shops in that other article could all be forced to close down.
How do you know that? Unless you can find some other object ever having been addressed, this is the sole object that we have any evidence of.
So "to regulate commerce with foreign nations" does not allow Congress to prohibit foreign trade?
Hmmmm. You would have thought that Madison would have told this to Jefferson in 1807 during "Jefferson's Embargo".
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.