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 ...
Ready for the big one? California can ban all guns if they so chose. There's nothing in the state constitution (one of six states, I believe) about the right to keep and bear arms.
129 posted on 11/20/2003 1:30 PM PST by robertpaulsen
Lets hear it for majority rule democracy!! --- As advocated by robertpaulsen!!!
-- Its working just as intended, -- to take away your rights...
Probably everything does. But that's beside the point.
What's at issue are those intrastate acts or products that a) substantially affect the interstate commerce that Congress b) is currently regulating.
Congress is controlling these intrastate acts or products using the power of the Necessary and Proper Clause in conjunction with the Commerce Clause. The Necessary and Proper Clause cannot be used standalone -- it must be used in conjunction with another power.
The Necessary and Proper Clause (listed at the end of Congress' other powers) gives Congress the power to write laws that are both necessary and proper "for carrying into execution the foregoing powers". Without this, Congress would not be able to stop states or individuals from undermining and subverting their interstate efforts.
Even if one grants the legitimacy of the "substantial effects" clause (which I think is a crock), there is no way that someone's backyard pot plant or homemade machine gun can have "substantial effects" on interstate commerce. The justices so holding are being intellectually dishonest.
The federal government simply has no legitimate authority to regulate such matters. These sorts of things were wisely left to the states to regulate, and there frankly is nothing stopping the states from doing so.
The other option is to amend the constitution to authorize the federal government to do so. But the current dishonest method of simply inventing authority out of whole cloth tends to undermine the legitimacy of our government.
Well, I don't see where the Commerce Clause says, "Congress may regulate commerce among the several states except in the following areas:".
I defy anyone to show me how the Commerce Clause cannot be invoked for absolutely anything, given this ruling.
Our Republic has, in fact, died.
Congress is controlling these intrastate acts or products using the power of the Necessary and Proper Clause in conjunction with the Commerce Clause. The Necessary and Proper Clause cannot be used standalone -- it must be used in conjunction with another power.
The Necessary and Proper Clause (listed at the end of Congress' other powers) gives Congress the power to write laws that are both necessary and proper "for carrying into execution the foregoing powers". Without this, Congress would not be able to stop states or individuals from undermining and subverting their interstate efforts.
Except it's all defined so subjectively that it's cumulatively meaningless. Bob Stewart couldn't build enough rifles to have a "substantial effect" on the interstate commerce in firearms. You've said it yourself - it's a tactic, not an objective.
And thusly, the FedGuv can now regulate and interfere with and dictate anything whatsoever.
And you're cool with that.
Isn't there a nice Soviet-Union-type country you could go to so you could pursue your Central Planning dreams without whining from freedom lovers like me?
We delegated the power to Congress (via the FAA) to regulate air traffic. We did not grant them the power to prohibit flying.
The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. That's it.
Exactly. They are not granted the power to prohibit commerce.
If a local activity has a substantial effect on the interstate commerce that Congress is currently regulating, then Congress has the power, under the Necessary and Proper Clause to write legislation controlling that activity.
And under the due process clause, the legislation must not unreasonably deprive people of life, liberty, or property.
Without that ability, states or individuals could undermine and subvert Congress' authority. Why even give Congress the power?
Read the preamble on why we give government power, paulsen. Pay particular attention to "securing the Blessings of Liberty".
The Commerce Clause was meant to be powerful.
But only under Constitutional restraints.
The problem lies with a Congress abusing that power.
Yet you advocate such abuses by supporting prohibitions.
The solution is for the people to send a message to Congress that we will not tolerate these intrusions.
Which is hardly accomplished by your toleration of their prohibitionary abuses.
Yup. It's dead, Jim.
What about my private pilot example? He's free to fly wherever and whenever he wants, but when his flying has a "substantial effect" on the interstate commerce that Congress is regulating (ie., he gets in the way of a very big and very fast airplane), Congress has to power to tell him not to do that. You do agree, I hope.
"there is no way that someone's backyard pot plant or homemade machine gun can have "substantial effects" on interstate commerce"
Well, the courts have allowed Congress to view this as not just one pot plant or one machine gun but to consider the aggregate. It could very easily be pot plants in 10 million backyards, could it not? Now, couldn't some of those plants end up in interstate commerce? I mean, who would know? There's no way to determine if the plants are interstate or intrastate.
Normally, who cares? BUT, in this case, Congress is trying to regulate the interstate commerce of marijuana, and 10 million growers of fungible marijuana would have a substantial effect on their efforts.
Does it really have a substantial effect, or does Congress just think it might? The Raich court says it makes no difference.
"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."
We can wink-wink, nudge-nudge this all day, but you know as well as I do that this "backyard" pot would end up interstate. Plus, how long before we'd hear the argument, "Well if it's legal to possess it in my state, and it's legal to possess it in your state, it's really stupid and a waste of law enforcement's time and money to keep me from taking my legal product to your state."
You can hear that argument, can't you?
"The federal government simply has no legitimate authority to regulate such matters."
You can certainly make the argument that Congress shouldn't regulate such matters. But numerous courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have ruled that they can.
"These sorts of things were wisely left to the states to regulate, and there frankly is nothing stopping the states from doing so."
Well yeah, there is. IF Congress chooses to legislate, their law supercedes any state law to the contrary. This is covered under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
But, let's pretend. Let's say Congress repealed the Controlled Substances Act and allowed each state to regulate drugs however they saw fit to do so. Some states legalized marijuana, some states kept all drugs illegal, some state legalized all drugs, some states legalized marijuana and cocaine, etc. OK? Is this what you had in mind?
Would this work? What to keep the legal heroin in one state from getting into the adjacent states where it remains illegal? Who's to prevent the export of legal marijuana/cocaine/heroin in one state to another country (where it's illegal)?
A little history. Prior to Prohibition, about half the states banned alcohol in one form or another. There was such a problem with "wet" states smuggling alcohol to the "dry" states that those "dry" states asked the federal government for help. The Webb-Kenyon Act was passed making it a federal crime to do this. It didn't work. Finally, Prohibition came about, which solved the problem.
You don't think the same thing would happen with easy-to-smuggle drugs?
"The other option is to amend the constitution to authorize the federal government to do so."
Since the federal government has the constitutional authority to regulate drugs, an amendment would be required to remove this power. This was done with alcohol.
Then Congress can have all the power it can imagine.
That is indeed true.
But if we allow Bob Stewart to build rifles, then we certainly must allow Bob Jones to build rifles, yes? Oh, and what about Bob Smith? Certainly he must be allowed. Bob Johnson? Bob Washington? A thousand Bobs? A million Bobs?
Looks like "substantial effect" to me. How do you propose avoinding that? You going to put a limit on the number of "Bobs"? Constitutionally?
You would allow your representative to pass a law that would regulate anything he wants?
Well then, you're right. Our Republic has indeed died.
An unlimited number of 'Bobs' is, indeed, the antithesis of a thousand brownshirts.
An out-of-context cheap shot. A perfect illustration of your inability to debate honestly.
There's the problem. If every person who had the skills and tooling to hand build firearms started doing it, do you think there would be any discernible detrimental affect on the interstate commerce of the country?
No, the powers delegated to Congress are few and defined. You read that too, didn't you?
I merely offer back to you what you present.
What I didn't see there is any of this "substantial effects" BS.
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.