Posted on 06/07/2005 4:38:29 PM PDT by nickcarraway
I like Thomas. He's got guts. As to medical marijuana, I really don't care if some little old lady wants to grow a pot plant in her back yard because it helps her arthritis.
The problem is, this is a disingenuous argument made by addicts to open a loophole and get drugs for free. And lord only knows what "rights" we would have to grant to stoned co-workers. Sadly, we once again are denying a benefit to some because of the corruption it creates in the wrong hands. Probably for the greater good that it remains illegal.
Justice Thomas needs to take a refresher course in Con Law. That same issue was decided by SCOTUS for the government and against the Constitution back during the FDR reign.
The problem is that if you actually read the majority opinion in Raich you'll see that Stevens almost openly said that the court may accept a substantive due process argument in the future (and then we would just have another judge-made liberal law so the libs would have their goal - allowing pot and maybe other drugs without touching the Commerce Clause).
This has been reasonably obvious for quite some time now. However, the liberal rationale has always puzzled me. My puzzle could be hugely diminished if I could find constitutional answers to some of the following questions.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; How does the constitutionally granted power to regulate interstate commerce extend to prohibiting the citizen the use of what is being regulated?
Why was the 18th amendment required before Congress could write law enforcing the prohibition of alcoholic beverages but no such amendment was required to enforce the prohibition of marijuana?
Why is growing marijuana interstate commerce?
When I was younger, it was acceptable for me to produce 200 gallons of alcohol each year for my own use without paying the alcohol tax?
The answer most sought by me is based on several facts that most liberals and conservatives already agree upon. I guess this is what makes the answer so important to me.
* Agreed Upon Fact 1 We the people established a government with limited powers.
** Agreed Upon Fact 2 The limited powers are specific and enumerated.
*** Agreed Upon Fact 3 Congress has the power to enforce law.
Article I, Section 1. All legislative Powers * this indicates that Congress has all legislative power herein granted **this indicates that Congresss Powers are listed somewhere in this document shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 17 is the list **the specific and enumerated powers that Congress can write legislation regarding.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 18:
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, ***this indicates that Congress can enforce legislation regarding the herein granted powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
The conclusion I draw from Facts 1 and 2 is that all constitutional power is enumerated. If it does not say Congress can, Congress cant.
The conclusion I draw from Fact 3 merely supports my previous conclusion.
So the question is; can you describe a power that Congress does not have?
The dwindling spiral we get when we fail to uphold the organization of our government as outlined in the Constitution. We'd be better off as a nation if California dealt with this alone.
I hope you are right, but if Democrats can get away with filibustering minor judicial nominees, why give way on the big ones? Maybe they will let a "moderate" replace Rehnquist, but if one of the six retire, I don't see any nominee being approvable.
Well, duh, of course. It can't regulate abortions because having one (including a partial-birth abortion of course) is a constitutional right (Amdt. XIV - penumbra).
Cause if stare decisis goes out the window, everything is open to relitigation and literally no issue is ever settled. The current behavior of the courts is bad enough, abandoning s.d. invites judicial tyranny.
Prior to R. v. W., the several states through their sovereign power expressed by their legislatures regulated abortion. It was legal in California and New York, banned in Texas and Massachusetts. That's how the constitution works, how it worked for almost 200 years. The New Deal greatly eroded the Constitution, the assault started with Lincoln and the Civil War.
Frankly, I think the 14th amendment comes closer to banning abortion than any penumbra comes to legalizing it. Conservatives never pressed for the Court to ban abortion in states allowing it, although they had (have) a better case.
Hm, wasn't it Scalia that wanted to overrule Miranda v. Arizona? Now if there is ANY judgment that is more settled (in an average person's consciousness) than that then let me know. Now let's see what Scalia says - overruling Roe v. Wade, OK, overruling Miranda v. Arizona, OK, overruling Wickard, BAD! Now where is the logic behind this?
Hank Rearden wrote:
And many/most FReepers can't wait to see Scalia as Chief Justice.
God help us. The Supreme Court sure as hell won't.
_____________________________________
Thomas v. Scalia in GONZALES v. RAICH et al.
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1417693/posts
Posted by P_A_I to Ken H; yall
On News/Activism ^ 06/07/2005 1:00:25 PM PDT · 127 of 156 ^
Scalia's other statement:
"That simple possession is a noneconomic activity is immaterial to whether it can be prohibited as a necessary part of a larger regulation.
Rather, Congress's authority to enact all of these prohibitions of intrastate controlled-substance activities depends only upon whether they are appropriate means of achieving the legitimate end of eradicating Schedule I substances from interstate commerce."
______________________________________
Scalia is simply reiterating that it is [in his mistaken opinion] constitutionally legitimate to eradicate "Schedule I substances from interstate commerce."
P_A_I
______________________________________
It sounds like he is simply saying that he believes that I.8.3 delegates such a power in Raich.
But on what basis?
Substantial effects? It does sound like an endorsement of Wickard.
122 Ken
That pretty much says it all.
We need a "strict constructionist" like Clarence Thomas as Chief Justice. I'm not that fond of Scalia.
A certain consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.
I'm not taking Scalia's side, just pointing out the value of s.d. The SCOTUS has, since about 1950, been a sad joke. Thomas at least is consistent in basing his opinions on the actual Constitution and ignoring wretched precedents.
Agreed to some extent but how then is an unconstitutional ruling overcome? And is ruling ever Unconstitutional? Doesn't judicial activism by definition render precedent obsolete?
The only drugs I do are legal (cafeinne, nicotine - only occationally in cigar form, and alcohol), so I have no personal motive in the legalization argument.
I have come not to care about legality of drugs because the vast majority of addicts - something like 90-95% - are alcohol addicts. They cause almost all the misery and death due to drugs. The Drug War is hugely expensive, ineffective, and corrosive to the freedom of law-abiding people. Any additional drug use will have no impact on your or me, and we will benefit hugely from the money saved and, most of all, from freedom from bad laws and bad cops.
If you want a federal Drug War and you want it to be constitutional, pass and ratify an amendment. Same thing if you want to force all states to legalize abortion.
For a smart man, Scalia sure missed the irony of listing a bunch of state and local crimes as examples.
No, I am not arguing both sides. Bad laws produce bad results, but that does not invalidate the principle of rule of law. Bad precedents assail the Constitution, but that does not necessarily invalidate the principle of judicial precedent. Bad precedents at least allow us to predict with some confidence how courts will rule in the future. No precedents means that we can never know what the law is.
The right way to attack bad precedents (Dred Scott) is to amend the underlying justification (in the case of Dred Scott, amendments XIII, XIV, XV).
See #59.
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.