I want the 9th Circuit to have my baby!

[Ramo]

And I'm making a proposition to the 9th Circuit.

[Imran Siddiqui]

All of them?

You slut!

[Ramo]

Only the two cool judges. And your point being?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well you said the 9th Circuit... you didn't specify 2 judges .

[Ramo]

The other one's taking it up the ass by Ashcroft at the moment.

[Sava]

good for the courts

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ramo
Wickard relied on a special case (in addition to dubious reasoning of course). IIRC the idea was that deciding to grow wheat affects its interstate market price. However, in the case of medical marijuana, as it isn't legal in other states, there exists no legal interstate market, thus the argument in Wickard cannot be applied.

So, under this logic, as soon as another state legalizes marijuana, the federal laws come into effect and it's illegal in both states?

[Ramo]

Your point would be? Doncha think it's a wee bit dubious to use the interstate commerce clause to justify federal laws prohibiting medicial marijuana when there's no interstate commerce involved in any respect?

[Sava]

as soon as another state legalizes marijuana

[Berzerker]

Don't get too excited about this one. The dissenting justice was correct on this one. If you look at Wickard v. Filburn, even intrastate medical drug use can be regulated under the Commerce Clause. Unless SCOTUS overrules Wickard, which is very doubtful, this case will probably be overruled.

I'd be surprised to see the SCOTUS uphold this ruling and little doubt the "conservative" judges who ruled against Congress' application of the interstate commerce clause - guns in a school zone (in Texas) - take the opposite approach this time.

But let's not kid ourselves, the 9th circuit ruled correctly and using the bogus "interpretation" that the power to regulate interstate commerce means regulating anything that "effects" interstate commerce while not qualifying as actual interstate commerce is judicial "activism". Hell, they could argue that swatting a fly with your hand is interstate commerce because you should have used a pesticide which might originate in another state. After all, not using the pesticide "effects" interstate commerce by effecting the supply and demand of pesticides.

Wickard v Filburn was a joke and a response to Roosevelt's court packing scheme (if not WWII). The notion that farmers can or cannot grow wheat, how much if at all, and keep or sell it, all based on what Congress wants is a perversion of both the language and the intent of the Constitution. The fact it took ~150 years and Roosevelt's threats for the SCOTUS to discover the "real" meaning of what constitutes interstate commerce provides us a clue about the power grab then (and now)...

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'd be surprised to see the SCOTUS uphold this ruling and little doubt the "conservative" judges who ruled against Congress' application of the interstate commerce clause - guns in a school zone (in Texas) - take the opposite approach this time.

Then you'll be suprised. Guns in a school zone don't involve any commercial activity. Selling drugs do. That is where the SCOTUS is going to get the California law.

[Berzerker]

Then you'll be suprised. Guns in a school zone don't involve any commercial activity. Selling drugs do. That is where the SCOTUS is going to get the California law.

I think you mis-read my prediction, I'd be surprised if the SCOTUS upholds the ruling, not over rules the 9th which is what I expect. As for guns in a school zone, it doesn't matter if it's a commercial activity. Only that an activity and any activity that "effects" commerce which in turn "automatically" effects interstate commerce falls under Congress' perview. And as Ramo points out, pot is illegal to sell in other states so it doesn't fall under interstate commerce even with the "new" definition.

This comes from Hickard v Wilburn and the Agricultural Act of 1938 (as amended):

4. That the production of wheat for consumption on the farm may be trivial in the particular case is not enough to remove the grower from the scope of federal regulation, where his contribution, taken with that of many others similarly situated, is far from trivial. P. 127.

Farmer's eating their own wheat is not commerce, but that's what Congress regulated anyway and that's what the SCOTUS upheld not only as commerce, but interstate commerce...

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'd be surprised if the SCOTUS upholds the ruling

Ah, my bad. You are correct .

Farmer's eating their own wheat is not commerce, but that's what Congress regulated anyway and that's what the SCOTUS upheld not only as commerce, but interstate commerce...

But if you read the rest of the opinion, you'll see the court say that growing wheat affects supply and demand. If they grew less (under federal dictate) then they'd have to buy wheat and all sorts of other BS. The court ended up saying intrastate commercial activity also counts as interstate commerce.

And under your prediction, I assume that you as well believe that Wickard will be cited to strike this law down.

[David Floyd]

Then you'll be suprised. Guns in a school zone don't involve any commercial activity. Selling drugs do. That is where the SCOTUS is going to get the California law.

Even if this is correct, selling drugs was not an issue in this case. They were, according to the article, grown for personal use.

Furthermore, even YOU have to admit that the Wickard case went WAY too far. Even assuming the Founders intended for the federal government to retain significant powers to regulate interstate "commerce", I doubt you could find a SINGLE Founder who would support Wickard. IIRC, that case told a farmer that he could not grow extra food for himself.

Now let's think about that for a second. The government is telling us that we can and cannot grow food for ourselves - we must, rather, purchase the food on the market.

Imran, cite a single Founder who you think would support that idea - hell, a single PERSON living in the United States in 1783 - and I'll be impressed enough to shut up.

And yes, I'm aware you don't like Original Intent arguments, but Wickard v Filburn is a case that is so outrageous, you've GOTTA question the application of the Commerce Clause.

[Berzerker]

Here was the reasoning of Congress and the judges trying to uphold the federal ban on guns in school zones. That since guns in a school zone induce fear among students, that negatively affects their education which in turn affects their future employment prospects and that affects interstate commerce. The only judge worth a damn on that decision was Thomas and he said the court needs to re-visit the notion that Congress can regulate activities that affect interstate commerce without actually qualifying as interstate commerce...