HELLO, MCSESSIONS.…HELLO!!!!!
Posted on 06/11/2018 5:06:11 AM PDT by moonhawk
Senator Warren, a Democrat of Massachusetts, is in the headlines for joining with Senator Cory Gardner, a Republican who represents Colorado, to introduce the Strengthening the Tenth Amendment Through Entrusting States Act. That legislation would, as Warren put it in a tweet, “let states, territories, & tribes decide for themselves how best to regulate marijuana — without federal interference.”
Justice Thomas is Warren’s natural ally on the issue. He wrote an emphatic dissent in the 2005 Supreme Court case Gonzalez v. Raich. Alberto Gonzalez was President George W. Bush’s attorney general, and Angel Raich is an Oakland, Calif., woman who used locally grown marijuana for medical reasons
Etc...
(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ...
Now is the time for an expansive states’ rights oriented decision.
What’s even funnier on this one is that Thomas might be in bed with Sotomayer, Ginsburg, and Kagan. So to speak.
HELLO, MCSESSIONS.…HELLO!!!!!
A lefty and a RINO walk into a hydroponics store...
“Now is the time for an expansive states’ rights oriented decision.”
Time to reverse Wickard v Filburn.
L
Government raus!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
Wickard marked the beginning of the Supreme Court's total deference to the claims of the US Congress to Commerce Clause powers until the 1990s. The Court's own decision, however, emphasizes the role of the democratic electoral process in confining the abuse of the power of Congress: “At the beginning Chief Justice Marshall described the Federal commerce power with a breadth never yet exceeded. He made emphatic the embracing and penetrating nature of this power by warning that effective restraints on its exercise must proceed from political rather than from judicial processes.”
“He made emphatic the embracing and penetrating nature of this power by warning that effective restraints on its exercise must proceed from political rather than from judicial processes.”
In other words Marshall refused to do his job and declare a huge chunk of the “New Deal” un-Constitutional.
L
Raich is a really abusive decision that essentially says everthing can be regulated by the Federal government as long as they say it is commerce.
It essentially said people growing weed, in their own home, for their own use, was interstate commerce and could be regulated by the federal government.
And that was Scalia! Terrible, terrible decision.
This one I’ve never understood
It is perfectly legal to grow deadly poisons in your garden
Belladonna is a good example,
so is the Death Angel mushroom
But Marijuana is somehow picked out as an exception
I don’t get it...
This one I’ve never understood
It is perfectly legal to grow deadly poisons in your garden
Belladonna is a good example,
so is the Death Angel mushroom
But Marijuana is somehow picked out as an exception
I don’t get it...
As much as Thomas might be supportive of the crux of the idea in the legislation Warren is backing, I seriously doubt their positions come from the same set of principles or have the same motives.
I think Warren’s motives are purely “populist” at the moment as legaization of Marijuana has become popular.
That those behind the legislation are hooking that populism to the 10th amendment is, I believe, just opportunistic on the part of their part. If that was not the case then the pupose of the bill would not be narrowly directed at marijuana but instead would declare open season on federal control over dozeens of things.
Agree. Which is why i said she should be careful what she wishes for. But I’m primed for a spectacular crash on her part, and a 10th amendment “revival”.
No money in deadly poisons and not enough people willingly possess them to justify an expansion of a police state.
Prohibition is about giving the government the power to search anyone at will and take whatever cash is discovered. As long as a doggie points or a cop says he smelled pot, it easily overrides all your rights.
Even a casual reading of the Tenth Amendment suggests the federal gummint has ZERO jurisdiction over marijuana or any other “illegal” substance. The same goes for ethanol, incandescent bulbs, seat belts and raw milk. If the Constitution doesn’t SPECIFICALLY say they can control it then they can’t make rules about it. Period.
I’m still wondering why we needed a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw alcohol but weed et al can be banned on the say-so of Congress.
From your keyboard to God's monitor.
The money quotes:
‘The Thomas dissent begins: “Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything — and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.”
‘Justice Thomas went on: “Respondents’ local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not ‘Commerce ... among the several States.’ By holding that Congress may regulate activity that is neither interstate nor commerce under the Interstate Commerce Clause, the Court abandons any attempt to enforce the Constitution’s limits on federal power.”
‘As Justice Thomas pointed out, “When agents from the Drug Enforcement Administration raided Monson’s home, they seized six cannabis plants. If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress’ Article I powers—as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause — have no meaningful limits.”’
Cannabis is not poisonous. That would be my assumption why its very different.
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.