Supremes rule against medical marijuana

I don't understand the "necessarily". In Wickard, the tradeoff was between the federal government's powers to regulate commerce against Wickard's right to grow as much wheat as he wants. In Raich, the tradeoff was between the federal government's power to regulate marijuana production, Raich's right to grow weed, and California's power to regulate its own marijuana production. I can see that the issue is the same from the US's point of view, but the other side of the tradeoff is different, so why would the outcomes "necessarily" be the same?

Vox populi, vox Dei

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Mankind has always sought altered states of consciousness and I suspect we always will …Medical marijuana is something of a joke…..while I have no doubt that there are a handful of individuals who actually receive some sort of therapeutic benefit ………..The use of marijuana as well as any other drug, for purely personal enjoyment, should be legalized…will dry up, billions of dollars in tax dollars will be saved, and billions more in taxes will be gained….Take a fair portion of this saved money and spend it on educating children ….There is a legitimate argument that drug abuse is not truly a victimless crime,…Based on my experience and observations (admittedly not scientific), Pot is only a gateway drug for those who suffer with addictive personalities. …………Outlawing all of the substances and practices to which people have become addicted will not put an end to addictive personalities and they will find new substances and new practices.

The above is totally irrelevant to the constitutional question of whether or not Congress has been delegated authority to enter a state to forbid the growth, use and transportation of a specified agricultural product within a state's borders and prosecute those who abide by state law, but ignore such federal legislation.

You're right, but I think we're allowed to roam a bit from the central point of a thread.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Having staked out my position on the legalization of drugs, I have to agree with the Supreme Court's ruling.

The SC did not make drugs illegal, the legislature did.

And by what authority does Congress legislate to prosecute the people within a state's borders who comply with state law concerning the growth and use of an agricultural product? Without such power being granted by the people to Congress, the Court would be aiding and abetting in the subjugation of the limited powers granted by the people to Congress. Why do you support the subjugation of our constitutionally limited system of government, a system in which folks in government are not free to impose their whims and fancies upon the people?

By authority of the Constitution as confirmed by the Supreme Court.

It is you who are characterizing federal anti-drug laws as the "subjugation of our constitutionally limited system of government." I don't accept that by agreeing with the SC decision that I am supporting the subjugation of anything.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

…the American people, through their representatives, have endorsed it

The American people have not endorsed what you suggest until they do so via the prescribe manner as outlined in Article 5 of the Constitution, which is the adoption of a constitutional amendment delegating such power to Congress as they did via the 18th Amendment with regard to a particular subject matter, but was later repealed.

Congress has passed laws that regulate and prohibit all sorts of practices. Are you suggesting that a constitutional amendment is required before any such regulation or prohibition is valid?

Constitutional amendments are, clearly, not the only means by which the American people express their will or endorse federal legislature.

The test of whether federal legislation is consistent with the Constitution is not whether you or I conclude that it is, but whether or not the Supreme Court does.

This, of course, doesn't preclude you or I having a difference of opinion with the SC, but since the law is, inarguably, open to interpretation, someone's interpretation must rule.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

One can only hope that the Feds will invoke this decision only when they perceive that there is significant illegal commerce taking place rather than when some poor soul wants to make his dying days a little less unpleasant by getting high.

Do you have any idea what was intended by the people in their grant of power to Congress to regulate commerce "among" [not within] the states?

I think I do, and you think you do. We're even.

Gonzalez (Ashcroft) v Raich is not about "medical marijuana"

To understand what the case was really about see:

A most formidable domestic enemy: the SCOTUS!

Sorry but I don't happen to acknowledge you as the Constitutional scholar of our times and therefore a link to one of your postings is hardly authoritative.

Make no mistake, the Supreme Court decision in Gonzalez (Ashcroft) v Raich is not about "medical marijuana" or the use of drugs as portrayed by the establishment media. The case is about the unauthorized exercise of power by the rich and powerful via the federal court system and their undoing of the limited power granted by the people to Congress to regulate commerce among the states. What this case really boils down to is one simple question: What did those who framed and ratified our Constitution intend by granting power to Congress to regulate commerce among the states?

I agree that it is not about "medical marijuana" and I doubt anyone on the SC would suggest that it was.

It is about the federal government's authority to regulate commerce among the states. Clearly, the majority believed that the federal ban on marijuana supersedes a states allowance of marijuana use for the reason that such state laws interfere with the authority of congress to regulate commerce among the states.

I really don't see how the interests of the rich and powerful are supported by this decision, but perhaps you can explain further.

While, in principle, I may be sympathetic to decentralization of power, the fact remains that federalism does mean the elimination of or serious diminution of central power, it means that power is divided between the central government and the states. It also remains a fact that more Americans vote for federal representatives than they do the state and local variety. It may signify an acceptance of a poor level of democratic participation by the electorate, but I tend to believe that the broadest will of the people is expressed through federal rather than state and local elections.


JWK

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State."

While, in principle, I may be sympathetic to decentralization of power, the fact remains that federalism does mean the elimination of or serious diminution of central power, it means that power is divided between the central government and the states. It also remains a fact that more Americans vote for federal representatives than they do the state and local variety. It may signify an acceptance of a poor level of democratic participation by the electorate, but I tend to believe that the broadest will of the people is expressed through federal rather than state and local elections.

Finn writes

Quote:

While, in principle, I may be sympathetic to decentralization of power, the fact remains that federalism does mean the elimination of or serious diminution of central power, it means that power is divided between the central government and the states. It also remains a fact that more Americans vote for federal representatives than they do the state and local variety. It may signify an acceptance of a poor level of democratic participation by the electorate, but I tend to believe that the broadest will of the people is expressed through federal rather than state and local elections.

I rarely disagree with Finn, and in fact may not be in serious disagreement here. After participating at length in spirited discussion related to these heavier 'social issues', I have come to the conclusion that if you don't like the local law, you want the federal government to decide it, and if you don't like the federal law, you want the states or local government to decide it. This seems to be true in issues as apolitical as speed limits and emission controls for cars to weightier matters such as abortion, stem cell research, or creches on the courthouse lawn.

An accurate assessment of the manifestation of human nature. What is important to consider, is that the imperatives of human nature do not always align with the social constructs of societally acceptable human behavior. Politics is selfishness. Democracy is a way in which the selfishness of the individual is not eliminated, but redirected towards the good of the whole. It is, at best, a precarious balancing act, but there has yet to be a superior system.

I'm not sure that the broadest will of the people is expressed through federal rather than state and local elections. The candidate bound for Washington DC is going to spend a lot more money and will be much higher profile than will the local county commissioner or precinct chair. Thus, though many (most?) people cannot name the congressman from their district, many more can name that person than can name their state representative or senator. That doesn't mean the people are any happier or more miserable under the laws that affect them whether local or federal. It just means they frequently praise or blame the wrong party for their situation.

As the old saw goes, all politics are local. But I think many people overtly or subconsciously trust the federal government more than they trust their local government. I think this is true even though the people have more control over their local government.

The old saw may be that all politics are local, but I defy anyone to produce statistics that suggest that a greater percentage of eligible voters participate in local elections rather than State elections, and State elections rather than Federal elections.

Local authorities may, on occassion, seek to kill the fatted goose but the local electorate usually sets them straight in short order However, there are a myriad of local ordinances tha do not imact the majority of ocal voters and therefore it the minority of voters who decide the direction of the municipality in question.


So, in the poll, I think those who want medical marijuana legalized have mostly voted for the federal government to legalize it everywhere. I think this group includes people who all or mostly want marijuana legalized period.

Such voters don't, in the case described, get to express their will on a federal level. I am all for legalized drugs (of any kind) in this country, but I make no mistake of tagging my argument to the case before the SC.

Apparently, to achieve a status which seems logical to me (legalization of any and all drugs) is a Herculean effort. For now I can retire, knowing that eventually currently illicit drugs will be legalized.

Unfortunately, the topic of drugs results in a viceral reaction which has no partnership with a reasonable reaction to a set of hard cold facts that are not ging to change irrespective of the enlighted efforts of am UBER ADMISTRATION.
The strongly anti-marijuana people also want it to be illegal everywhere.

Those of us who are more ambivalent either way mostly prefer for the local people to decide for their own communities. While not pro-marijuana, many of us think it ridiculous that it is criminalized to the extent that it is.

The ambivalence of the American people overall, however, is such that not enough people care enough one way or the other to push the issue. The Supreme Court did. I think the minority got it right and the majority erred on this one. But I doubt enough people will care enough to push for a change in the law that would force them to look at it again.

An accurate assessment of the manifestation of human nature. What is important to consider, is that the imperatives of human nature do not always align with the social constructs of societally acceptable human behavior. Politics is selfishness. Democracy is a way in which the selfishness of the individual is not eliminated, but redirected towards the good of the whole. It is, at best, a precarious balancing act, but there has yet to be a superior system.

The old saw may be that all politics are local, but I defy anyone to produce statistics that suggest that a greater percentage of eligible voters participate in local elections rather than State elections, and State elections rather than Federal elections.

Local authorities may, on occassion, seek to kill the fatted goose but the local electorate usually sets them straight in short order However, there are a myriad of local ordinances tha do not imact the majority of ocal voters and therefore it the minority of voters who decide the direction of the municipality in question.

So, in the poll, I think those who want medical marijuana legalized have mostly voted for the federal government to legalize it everywhere. I think this group includes people who all or mostly want marijuana legalized period

Such voters don't, in the case described, get to express their will on a federal level. I am all for legalized drugs (of any kind) in this country, but I make no mistake of tagging my argument to the case before the SC.

Apparently, to achieve a status which seems logical to me (legalization of any and all drugs) is a Herculean effort. For now I can retire, knowing that eventually currently illicit drugs will be legalized.

Unfortunately, the topic of drugs results in a viceral reaction which has no partnership with a reasonable reaction to a set of hard cold facts that are not ging to change irrespective of the enlighted efforts of am UBER ADMISTRATION.