"Are you saying that the fact that California is implementing their program at Fisherman's Wharf somehow shows that medical cannabis users are limitless in number and that the legal activities cannot be separated from the illegal ones?"Fisherman's Wharf is a huge out-of-state tourist attraction. Good luck trying to separate the legal activities from the illegal ones.
"So they opened a little storefront to serve a few people in the Bay area."
Did you know that it is illegal to sell medical marijuana in California? If the state authorities will turn a blind eye to this, why would they care if the store sold to recreational users from out-of-state?
"Big deal, it's still a drop in the ocean compared to the black market"
"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."
-- Wickard v Filburn
"Sandra Day O'Connor is a "she" but that's not important."
Hey, take your victories where you can get them. You're not having much luck debating the actual issues.
"See any evidence of implication by legislative design that regulating intrastate activity is essential?"
The 1990 Lopez case said the Gun-Free Schools Act was unconstitutional. The 922(q) statute you listed is the new 1996 language. That has not yet been challenged, and may pass U.S. Supreme Court muster. What's your point here?
The 1990 Lopez case said the Gun-Free Schools Act was unconstitutional. The 922(q) statute you listed is the new 1996 language. That has not yet been challenged, and may pass U.S. Supreme Court muster. What's your point here?
Well, back at
post 96, in response to a quotation from Thomas'
Morrison concurrence, you said this:
That's where he complains that Congress is out of control, that Congress has no limits and that Congress is usurping state police powers.
That little diatribe was in a court decision that bitch-slapped Congress and said VAWA was unconstitutional, right on the heels of another court decision bitch-slapping Congress saying that their Gun-Free Schools Act was unconstitutional.
So much for "runaway Congressional power", huh?
It sounded like the Courts were keeping Congress in check, until I pointed out that after the 1995 Lopez decision, Congress turned around in 1996 and rewrote the same law with new Commerce Clause language.
You acknowledged that point in
post 310, where you said this about the 1996 law:
Until it's challenged. Like any other law. And there are those who say the law, even with the new language, will not survive if challenged.
I pointed out that if the new law is challenged in a post-Raich world, it will most likely pass, because the new law contains "some implication by legislative design that regulating intrastate activity is essential" to their interstate gun regulation.
You also switched tracks a bit, moving away from your position that the Courts "bitch slapped" Congress over guns near schools when you said this:
People look to the court to address the issue and what happens? Congress rewrites the law. And they'll rewrite it again if if fails the second time. Obviously, this is not working.
As I said, get out the vote and throw out the lawmakers that are writing this overreaching legislation. If you don't have the votes, then shut up -- maybe that means the citizens actually want this legislation.
While I agree that being in the majority is one way to get your rights respected, I also believe that in a Republic, the rights of the minority must be protected against the tyranny of the majority, and we do that by maintaining the rule of law. The political branches are, of course, going to go after the majority will in most cases, even at the expense of the rights of some citizens, and if they break the terms of our contract (the Constitution) in so doing, the Courts should nullify their actions. If they have a big enough majority, they can always amend the Constitution.
At post 96, you're pointing to the Court "bitch slapping" Congress to deflate Justice Thomas' quotation about runaway Congressional power. At post 310, things are going one way, and you say the 1996 law may not pass a Court test. By 355, they're going another way, and you say it may pass. You start out saying the Court bitch slapped Congress, then move to saying that Congress will (should?) always overrule the Court if a majority wants it, so this "bitch slapping" is obviously not working. And now you ask what is MY point about
Lopez? Like I said, you're still a funny guy!