Posted on 01/23/2003 9:33:31 AM PST by hoosierskypilot
Edited on 04/13/2004 1:55:38 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Your mistake is expecting Roscoe to ever answer a question directly.
He is a bot programmed only to spurt veering non-sequitors from the peanut gallery.
Roscoe would be nearly entertaining if he would stick to simply posting as an old, crotchety, worshiper of state power.
But he quickly becomes bored with that and then he becomes a pure nuisance and not even slightly entertaining.
Actually, "substantial and direct effect."
You're all for the expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause and General Welfare Clause.
You're a big government liberal in the tradition of FDR and LBJ when it comes to the Constitution.
FDR opposed prohibition.
Just like Roscoe supports.
The Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the United States Constitution mandates that federal law supersede state law where there is an outright conflict between such laws. See Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 (9 Wheat) U.S. 1, 210, 6 L.Ed. 23 (1824); Free v. Bland, 369 U.S. 663, 666, 82 S. Ct. 1089, 8 L.Ed.2d 180 (1962); Industrial Truck Ass'n, Inc. v. Henry, 125 F.3d 1305, 1309 (9th Cir. 1997) (state law is preempted "where it is impossible to comply with both state and federal requirements, or where state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purpose and objectives of Congress"). Recognizing this basic principle of constitutional law, defendants do not contend that Proposition 215 supersedes federal law, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). Indeed, Proposition 215 on its face purports only to exempt certain patients and their primary caregivers from prosecution under certain California drug laws-it does not purport to exempt those patients and caregivers from the federal laws. One of the ballot arguments in favor of the initiative in fact states: "Proposition 215 allows patients to cultivate their own marijuana simply because federal law prevents the sale of marijuana and a state initiative cannot overrule those laws." Peron, 59 Cal.App.4th at 1393, 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 20 (quoting Ballot Pamphlet, Proposed Amends. to Cal. Const. with arguments to voters, Gen.Elec. (Nov. 5, 1996 p. 60)).
Congress also "found" that domestic violence has a "substantial and direct effect" on interstate commerce when the passed the Violence Against Women Act. Your philosophy is a guaranteed formula for creeping socialism, protecting whatever gains the left makes while they are in power as "precedent", and allowing them the most subjective possible view of the constitutional limits of the federal government.
He's a recursive infinte loop nested so deep even the guy who programmed him is dizzy. But keep on feeding him data. Maybe there's a backdoor in there somewhere.
Justice Thomas wrote this separate opinion as part of his concurrence with the majority opinion in United States v. Morrison (Violence Against Women Act), which was found unconstitutional. He also referred to United States v. Lopez (Gun Free School Zones Act) where he voted with the majority to rule it unconstitutional.
I agree with him on both decisions. I thought both cases were a stretch of the Commerce Clause. So?
You realize that there are eight other Justices, don't you? Do they get an opinion, too, or are we to go with just Clarence Thomas?
One other minor point. There are three branches in the US government. The legislature is one of them. Maybe they should also have a voice.
We don't have, or want, a judicial oligarchy. As Thomas Jefferson said:
"The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the legislature and executive also in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch."
Backwards. And an entertaining example of doublethink.
Yep, the courts have consistently and explicitly refused to equate drugs with the right to keep and bear arms.
Don't bother. Your position is meritless.
An example of a Federal law in pursuance of the Constitution would be if Congress were to pass a law outlawing the CA ban on assault weapons.
The ruling you cite just backs up your liberal philosophy of an expansive interpretation of the Constitution that gives more power to the Feds.
Like I said, a big government liberal.
This is true, and on the surface, looks as though Wickard would not be appropriate. The Wickard decision says two things: One, the Agricultural Adjustment Act only controls marketing, so the government can regulate that. But two, if you're going to argue that the Agricultural Adjustment Act goes beyond that, well, it's still sustainable ....
"In answer the Government argues that the statute regulates neither production nor consumption, but only marketing; and, in the alternative, that if the Act does go beyond the regulation of marketing it is sustainable as a "necessary and proper"[fn15] implementation of the power of Congress over interstate commerce."
The Wickard decision also cited United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co., which I haven't read.
Beg that question.
No thanks. Beg for it from your fellow big government liberals.
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.