Re: Law student could use a little guidance...
JustanObserver wrote:My question: Can any of you point me toward any websites that might provide a little more information on the issues or information on the case? From the looks of it, I can find the issue of "the aggregation principal" of Wickard v. Fillburn, and the "jurisdictional element" from Morrison.
Basically, any info that could give me a better grasp of the case would be greatly appreciated. Any takers?
PS, Remember a few weeks ago when I asked for some guidance on my midterm? We got the grades back, and mine was the top score of the class (by quite a bit)!! I can't thank those of you who helped enough!
The Commerce Clause is essentially, "Congress can do any damn thing it wants to do Clause." It is rare for any law based on Congress's commerce clause powers to be declared unconstitutional.
If you remember, in the Lopez case, the possession or discharge of a gun in a school zone had absolutely nothing to do with interstate commerce and the Gun Free School Zones Act was declared unconstitutional. But, as soon as Congress added the "jurisdictional nexus" language ("moving in or otherwise affecting interstate commerce") with respect to the gun at issue, then PRESTO -- the otherwise unconstitutional law was magically turned into a constitutional law.
Because FEDERAL law is Supreme (it trumps state law in the heirarchy of laws), the dissenting opinion in the medical marijuana case makes more sense when read in conjunction with all other cases on the Commerce Clause.
Congratulations on your top score on your business organizations midterm paper! What was it about your paper that made it the highest scoring paper in the class?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace