I see. Do you know you do know that Gonzales vs. Raich is not a court order, right?
This USSC decision from 2005 specifically states that any item produced is “never more than an instant away from the interstate market” and can thus be regulated by the congress.
This is decided precedent (wrong, but decided) and will not likely be revisited by an Obama court.
Nope, its not going to be revisited by Obamas court. It’s going to be revisited by STATES who are drawing a line. MANY people in some red states are now demanding that the slide into dictatorship will go no further.
Its foolish to think you can point at precedents in a law book and say “thats that”. King George tried that too, but in the end just law and government depends upon the consent of the governed people.
If the federals want to reassert their dominance over Montana, against the clear will of the people of Montana, we will see who prevails. And it might not be in a courtroom. Say the feds decided Montana was in rebellion and moved forcefully to put the heel on them. Is it really that simple? How would other states like Texas react if they saw a brutal crackdown on Montana? Its a very complicated calculus, and in hard truth, Obama is not too intelligent. He could screw this up royally if he isnt careful.
There is clearly reason to worry here, simply because the law is being passed.
In this Montana instance, I disagree. The direct focus of the Montana law disallows any obliquity in which the feds can assert additional interests. So in the event of a case against a Montana person, who in turn retreats behind Montana state law, the specificity of this new state law would require a SCOTUS rehearing on direct merits (should they choose to grant cert.).
In fact, I think that the Montana law might actually have been created to force just this showdown.