Posted on 05/12/2008 4:43:29 AM PDT by Aristotelian
I believe I said his statement was correct. It wasn't the reason given by the court in Gonzales v Raich, however.
You are correct that the Raich court relied heavily on Wickard v Filburn where it was ruled that Mr. Filburn would not have purchased wheat on the open market.
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution
The New Deal Commerce Clause has done exactly what Joseph Story warned against, and the result has been exactly as he predicted.
I was referring to the election ballot box. California law was changed by a public referendum, not by the state legislature. I thought we were a representative republic, not a pure democracy.
The California medical marijuana law conflicts with federal law and is, therefore, in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S Constitution. Sedition isn't anarchy?
Less than 10% of Californians voted in favor of medical marijuana. Hardly representative of "the people" now is it?
No, we are a diverse set of 50 states, some of which are purely representative republics, some of which have always had referrendums, I cant believe you are against something on the basis that the people voted for it.
The California medical marijuana law conflicts with federal law and is, therefore, in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S Constitution. Sedition isn't anarchy?
That's not the case. It is not the case that the states must consider the same things to be crimes that the feds do.
Less than 10% of Californians voted in favor of medical marijuana. Hardly representative of "the people" now is it?
Huh? Didn't you just get through saying that it came about as the result of the people voting?
Why don't you just admit that you can't stand the fact that some people are getting high and not going to jail and losing their homes and families over it?
By the way, I don’t do drugs, but you and your arguments are precisely why I am against the drug war.. it has been a vehicle for destroying all of our other rights. Here you are, arguing for the most liberal interpretation of the commerce clause, solely because it bothers you that people have a good time without you.
And even less voted against it. Or, are you one of those people who believes that everything should prohibited unless specifically authorized?
Doesn't make him right.
Give me one good reason to consider FDR’s New Deal “living document” court more authoritative on the original intent of the Commerce Clause than he is.
Things might be a little clearer if Marshall's comments were taken in the context of the case they were taken from, and included the rest of that opinion. I think you're quote mining.
Because to keep people from getting stoned and having a good time?
I get the feeling that's supposed to be enough, but it's not working for me.
I never said it was the basis. I don't know where you got that.
The Founders were against a pure democracy and so am I, but that has nothing to do with my opinion of smoked "medical" marijuana.
"It is not the case that the states must consider the same things to be crimes that the feds do."
So a state could legalize counterfeiting (if they promised to keep the bills in the state)?
"Didn't you just get through saying that it came about as the result of the people voting?"
Yes I did. Which demonstrates what happens when the people vote directly -- a small, but motivated, group of people end up passing the laws.
You don't understand even the basics of federalism. Counterfeiting is a Fed crime. The states don't have to make it a state crime. For example, Treason is a Fed crime, but is not a crime in most states. That doesn't mean that it is legal to commit Treason in such a state, just that it is a violation of Fed law, not state law. California can decriminalize marijuana, and it is not a violation of anything.. it just means its not illegal under state law anymore (but still is under fed law).
I thought we were discussing medical marijuana. What does "people having a good time" have to do with medical marijuana?
Because you, in your very first post, were upset that maybe some of the people smoking it were doing it to have a good time, and not for medical reasons.
The Founders expressed no opinion on whether or not states could use referrenda.
You're right. Counterfeiting was a bad example. Try child porn. OK for a state to legalize it (within state borders, of course)?
You are missing the point.. states don't "legalize" anything. In a free society, you are free to do what you want unless the gov't has a law against it. If California says "we don't care if you smoke pot anymore", that doesn't mean that they are conflicting with the Feds.. the feds still say its illegal. If California wants to, they can say that child porn is not against the law anymore as far as California is concerned, but it will be as far as the feds are concerned.
Could use? I never implied their use was not allowed. When it came a desirable form of government, the Founders disdained a pure democracy.
Are you saying you prefer the people voting directly on statewide issues? Is this fair? Is this even representative?
Now there's a loaded question.
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.