[An.American.Expatriate]

Not to pee on your parade, but Gonzales v. Raich will likely be the precedent the government uses to kill this idea ....

[papertyger]

This sounds a little beyond the courtroom dance...

[ctdonath2]

Raich was the DEA vs. a terminally ill grandmother. Montana (a full state, not a poor dying individual) should be able to shove the issue back up to SCOTUS, and make it clear the ruling was absurd (being based on the notion that reducing demand in an illegal interstate market somehow fits the Commerce Clause), especially in light of "shall not be infringed" overriding any bent interpretations of the Commerce Clause.

[DesertRhino]

The *point* is that Montana says thats not valid and is a dishonest unconstitutional interpretation of the commerce clause. And Montana says “ok, your move, what you going to do about it Kenyan?”

If the feds push, Montana says their next move is to vote to seceed.

[LoneStarC]

“Not to pee on your parade, but Gonzales v. Raich will likely be the precedent the government uses to kill this idea ....”

You are probably right.

Not the least among the parallels of Obama with FDR is the view that the Constitution is an unjustified restriction on government power.

The “interstate commerce clause” concept arose from the Supreme Court’s submission to FDR under threat of stacking the court with 11, 13, 15, 17 or whatever odd number of members required to get unconstitutional laws legitimized.

More federal laws - and agencies - are now dependent upon the “IC clause” than are dependent upon the actual constitution for their existence.

[Still Thinking]

Well, that’s potentially beside the point, since the whole point is that MT is stating they’re no longer going to assume every federal edict is valid, and the last time I checked, SCOTUS works for the FedGov.

[OafOfOffice]

But we have dissenting opinions. Canabis smokers or those who need it for medicinal purposes did not have the numbers to fight the federal law. There are 100 million gun owners. Gun Owners will not go silent into that good night. It appears to me Justice Stevens will be left in the cold.

Justice O’Connor, dissenting, began her opinion by citing United States v. Lopez, which she followed with a reference to Justice Louis Brandeis’s dissenting opinion in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann:

“ Federalism promotes innovation by allowing for the possibility that “a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country...”[9]
”

O’Connor concluded:

“ Relying on Congress’ abstract assertions, the Court has endorsed making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one’s own home for one’s own medicinal use. This overreaching stifles an express choice by some States, concerned for the lives and liberties of their people, to regulate medical marijuana differently. If I were a California citizen, I would not have voted for the medical marijuana ballot initiative; if I were a California legislator I would not have supported the Compassionate Use Act. But whatever the wisdom of California’s experiment with medical marijuana, the federalism principles that have driven our Commerce Clause cases require that room for experiment be protected in this case.
”

Justice Thomas also wrote a separate dissent, stating in part:

“ Respondent’s local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not “Commerce ... among the several States.”

Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that “commerce” included the mere possession of a good or some personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana.
”

and

“ 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. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to “appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce.”
”

and further:

“ If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison’s assurance to the people of New York that the “powers delegated” to the Federal Government are “few and defined”, while those of the States are “numerous and indefinite.”[10]
”

Chief Justice William Rehnquist, author of the majority opinions in United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison, joined O’Connor’s dissent.