No Medical Marijuana

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Where does the constitution restrict Congress' commerce power to legal commerce?

What he said.

This is also a response to ZKribbler's protest that there is no interstate market because it is banned. After all, the banning is undertaken under the Commerce Clause (without the banning, it obviously would be involved in interstate commerce). Think of it as if the federal government banning cigarettes.

It's part and parcel of the prior decisions and I don't see it as a 'step further'.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Interesting that if you adopted the rationale of Thomas' dissent, we could can Title VII, decisional law such as Heart of Atlanta, and Federal wage and hours and child labor laws in any professions other than interstate transportation or sales.

[Mr. Harley]

Imran, what I find fascinating though is Scalia's concurring opinion. His "Necessary and Proper" clause is a very broad reaching interpretation, that virtually removes anything remotely associated with the economy from the perview of the states. I felt the Thomas had a much better reading of the strict constructionist interpretation, while the majority opinion maintains the status quo and modern jurisprudence. Scalia has the far-reaching opinion that is most activist, i.e. expanding the power of the federal government.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Interesting that if you adopted the rationale of Thomas' dissent, we could can Title VII, decisional law such as Heart of Atlanta, and Federal wage and hours and child labor laws in any professions other than interstate transportation or sales.

That's the reason the liberals voted the way they did. To preserve the broad reach of the federal government.

[Mr. Harley]

Exactly, Dinodoc, even though Stevens apologized about the resulting decision as he supported medical marijuana personally. OConner did the same in her dissent, she noted she would NOT have voted for nor supported the law even though her dissent would have permitted its implementation.

Go to the SCOTUS site and read Scalia's opinion. He is doing one of his odd agenda driven opinions, and seems to have a hard-on for the "Necessary and Proper" clause. As he is neither supporting jurisprudence opinion (the majority), nor the rather well written strict constructionist dissent (Thomas) I am trying to figure this one out. We are talking about the next Chief Justice.

[chequita guevara]

What liberals?

[Mr. Harley]

The moderates who masquerade as liberals in the early 21st century United States.

[DinoDoc]

When will the federal government crackdown on quilting bees?