_____________________________________
...the authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws governing intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.
J. Scalia, concurring in Raich
_____________________________________
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.
J.Thomas, dissenting in Raich
Thomas is correct, of course. I don’t understand Scalia on this...his argument is exactly the ste one the statits have used for decades to give nearly complete power to the federal government. Any idea that is distinty NOT in line with the Federalist intentions of our Founders.
Thomas is correct, and true to the original intent of the Founders.
I have always admired and respected Scalia. He has an incredibly brilliant mind, but somewhere along the road he lost his way and ended up in a statist mindset. He’s no friend of the Second Amendment either. Tragic.
I agree with Justice Thomas here!
Mark
They differ because Thomas understands the underlying philosophy of Natural Law Theory and inalienable rights which come from God and is consistent in his thinking which is VERY logical....since logic originated in the laws of nature.
Scalia has “reasoned” that abortion rights can be “voted” on by states. THAT would be Constitutional????? Never, not with the understanding of inalienable rights—made so clear in our constitution and by Natural Law Theory....which says that inalienable rights can NEVER be given away or taken away. NEVER.
This fundamental meaning of our Constitution is destroying the very Rule of Law and creating man made-up laws not based on God’s law and the laws of nature....so we get all bizarre sort of “reasoning” like two men can “marry”. Such idiocy (and unconstitutional) is the thinking of Scalia at times.
Natural Rights of human beings can never be voted away like in Nazi Germany and Stalin’s Gulags. Our laws believe in a Supreme Law—Objective Truth. To deny God, is to deny that we have Natural Rights.
Right Reason according to Nature (God’s Law) is the basis of all Just Law in the US—or should be....we have seen very irrational things (Marxism) codified into laws here though.
Supra Positive Law==which exists in the US can declare these “null and void” and should if we were operating under the Constitution of the US instead of the USSR which established a separation of God and State.
Clearly, Thomas is the originalist.
Bless him for being the conservative jurist that he is, but Scalia's argument smacks of expediency.
Scalia is out of his mind on the Commerce clause.
It was only intended to make the Fed gov an arbitor in disputes between the states WRT commerce, not an originator of controls.
Thomas was correct and Scalia was incorrect. It’s as simple as that.
Actually, I'm surprised at Scalia's concurrence on this. And disappointed. And no, I'm not a pothead and have a very low opinion of those who are. The Constitution is the Constitution, even when it's inconvenient for my preferences.
By the way, people that support Scalia's concurrence in Raich should be honest with themselves and admit that they are not conservatives. Maybe they can consider themselves social conservatives, but they are not true conservatives. True conservatives don't support the idea of a federal government exceeding its constitutional limit. If you want to ban drugs, PASS A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. We needed one for alcohol prohibition. I think passing such an amendment would be a horrible idea, just like the prohibition amendment was, but at least they'd be following the law set forth by our Founding Fathers.
I never figured Scalia for an "ends justify the means" type of guy.
I respect Scalia, but he could not be more wrong in this case.
Scalia is wrong, Thomas is right. Period!
Interesting question. I don’t think we would object to the federal government intruding into intrastate affairs where it concerns protection of our constitutional rights, such as the right to bear arms.
We’ve already seen cases where municipalities have gone too far in the restriction of fire arm possession.
On the other hand, we have seen the abuse of federal authority in commerce and education.
The drug issue is especially thorny. What if a state or municipality decides to legalize the sale or possession of drugs? Where do you draw the line between state and federal authority in such matters?
The abuse of eminent domain in some states has resulted in property being confiscated so that shopping malls could be built, with the justification that the community would benefit. I believe the Supreme Court actually upheld such activity. There is obviously a great balancing act required between federal power and states rights. The Court doesn’t always get it right.
You can tell which one is telling the truth because he uses the more direct, logical sentence structure. If you have to use convoluted construction to justify something, it’s probably not worth justifying.
I’m with Justice Thomas on Raich. Though I could care less about the potheads, my opinion is that Justice Thomas is closer to the originalist point of view here.