Replies

Actually, there is a huge difference between the Sodomy case and the medical mj case.

In the sodomy case, there was no federal statute that was inconsistent with the state sodomy laws--that is, no federal statute expressly making sodomy a federal right.

Thus, to invalidate the state law, the SC had to invent a brand new constitutional right of Sodomy, which then superseded the state law under the Supremacy clause. It is the invention of the new right of Sodomy (where none exists in the constitution) that was the essence of this case and about which conservatives complain. Without the wholecloth invention of this new right, the state law stands.

On the other hand, in the medical mj case, federal statutory law makes mj illegal. So the SC did not have to invent any news federal laws or rights. MJ has been illegal under Federal law for years.

Of course, the state statute makes mj legal. Thus, there is a conflict between the existing federal and state laws and, under the supremacy clause, federal law prevails.

So the difference between the two cases arises from whether the SC created an entirely new, extra-constitutional, right. In the sodomy case, it did. In the medical mj case, it did not.

Now, if you were to argue that the medical mj case was wrongly decided because the federal statute there was not within the enumerated powers of the federal government, you would have a much better argument, imho. But the 10th amendment by itself is no basis at all for ignoring the supremacy clause, which is the essence of your argument on the medical mj case.

Yeah, what ModelBreaker said, with one slight change: The new right the SCOTUS found was not Sodomy, and was not really new. They've found it before: Privacy. They first found this right in the 9th Amendment in a contraception case in the 60s, and went on to "find" it again in the 9th and/or 14th (more detail in this article) for Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton. What the Justices of the last two generations simply refuse to recognize is that if the Founders wanted to include a right to privacy they could have done so very easily. The current court is stretching the combination of privacy and consent to make a trump card that outweighs all state interests, and I don't think that they realize just how badly they've screwed up.

Now, if you were to argue that the medical mj case was wrongly decided because the federal statute there was not within the enumerated powers of the federal government, you would have a much better argument, imho. But the 10th amendment by itself is no basis at all for ignoring the supremacy clause, which is the essence of your argument on the medical mj case.

Actually, the supremacy clause has no relevance, because a federal "law" that is not supported by the powers granted to the federal government in the Constitution is not really a law at all. Hence, there is no conflict between two laws.