The Supreme Court rejected appeals today from two hold-out counties in Southern California that object to the state's 13-year-old medical marijuana law and claimed it should be struck down as violating the federal drug-control act.How can this be possible?
Without comment, the court turned down the pair of appeals...
Federal officials have continued to insist that all use of marijuana is illegal, even in states such as California. However, Atty. Gen. Eric Holder said recently that the federal government will not devote great effort to prosecuting low-level marijuana cases.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Are We No Longer A Nation Of Laws?
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'd have no problem if marijuana were legalized in the United States. Presently, though, it's illegal--but we here in California now have federal permission to flout the law:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
"Flout" federal law? Would you remind me again which Constitutional provision allows Congress to enact laws that make medicinal use of marijuana, within the state boundaries, illegal? We'll stop flouting Congress when they stop flouting the Constitution, which both I and the founders would consider a more egregious offense.
didnt this happen once before in history?
except instead of legalizing marijuana, it was about legalizing equal rights for blacks?
Weren't there several states in history that gave the federal law at the time "the bird" and kept equal rights illegal even though federal law said otherwise?
Yes, a nation of laws. And the law in California is that it is legal to use marijuana in particular ways.
Anonymous, do I *really* need to give you a civics lesson about the primacy of federal law?
What part of the constitution allows the federal government to do that?
The same part that allows the government to approve/disapprove of medications via the FDA, and the same part that allows NASA?
The federal government has argued that they have the right to shut down states' medical marijuana laws because of the commerce clause (art. I, § 8, cl. 3), which says Congress can regulate interstate commerce. The argument is that, even if someone grows their own, and doesn't even buy it from their neighbor (let alone another state), they are affecting interstate commerce because, well, now they're NOT buying from another state, so they technically are "affecting" it! That is an astoundingly dumb argument. I can't believe anyone takes it seriously.
I would call that proof that judicial activism is not just something liberals do.
Cameron, it was during the Great Depression that a farmer was told by the US government, and affirmed by the Supreme Court, that he could *not* grow more than the government-approved amounts of crops, even though he wanted them for his own use. The Court's reasoning was exactly what you describe above--that if he grew his own, he wouldn't have to buy from the store, which most likely would involve interstate commerce. Voila! Interstate Commerce Clause.
US Supreme Court. Great Depression. New Deal policies. Not known as a time of conservatism in US government.
OK, I found it on Wikipedia. Wickard v. Filburn. Here's what the wiki says:
Roscoe Filburn was a farmer who produced wheat in excess of the amount permitted. Filburn however, argued that because the excess wheat was produced for his private consumption on his own farm, it never entered commerce at all, much less interstate commerce, and therefore was not a proper subject of federal regulation under the Commerce Clause.
The Federal District Court ruled in favor of Filburn. The Act required an affirmative vote of farmers by plebiscite in order to implement the quota. Much of the District Court decision related to the way in which the Secretary of Agriculture had campaigned for passage: The District Court had held that the Secretary's comments were improper. The government then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which called District Court's holding against the campaign methods which led to passage of the quota by farmers a "manifest error." The court then went on to uphold the AAA under the Interstate Commerce Clause.
.
Since this jibes with what I remember of the case, I'll accept the quoted Wikipedia statements above as correct.
The end of the Wickard v. Filburn article on Wikipedia discusses marijuana specifically.
The court in Raich and other cases isn't participating in judicial activism, Cameron. It's using the concept of "precedent". :-)
Really, though, with that argument ANY commerce is interstate commerce. I don't think that's what the founding fathers had in mind. As a conservative, don't you think that's putting too much power in the federal government's hands? I do. In the Raich case, Clarence Thomas, in the dissenting opinion, had some good thoughts:
"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...
"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...
"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.'"
The argument is completely ridiculous, precedent or not.
Of course I don't agree with the Wickard ruling, but it *is* the law. And Raich--well, the primacy of federal law is *not* up for grabs.
If you're willing to throw out activist rulings and return to the intent of the Founders, I'm right there with you :-)
"I don't think that's what the founding fathers had in mind."I'm sure you're right, Cameron. At the time of the founding fathers, "regulate" meant "to keep regular." It didn't mean "to control," as it does today.
Post a Comment