Supreme Court to weigh medical marijuana laws

Not to mention that there are some recent rulings that tend to show that illegal substances can't be owned (no vested property rights), and therefore cannot be in commerce. To continue with the facade of Wickard, against these other rulings sets up several contradictions.
Click to expand...
If you stack up two Catch 22's do you get a Catch 44?
 
Not to mention that there are some recent rulings that tend to show that illegal substances can't be owned (no vested property rights), and therefore cannot be in commerce.
Click to expand...
Whoa, now that's something. Aside from the obvious paradox*, it means that the federal government cannot make ownership of anything illegal based on its interstate commerce power. Personally, I agree, but on different grounds -- the power to regulate (18th century usage) does not confer the power to ban.

As cute as that concept is, I have to take issue with the premise, though. I doubt that "commerce" was meant to refer only to legal transactions. Several of the Founders were smugglers; although they probably didn't want the government messing with their smuggling operations, I doubt they would say that the government lacked jurisdiction in matters of interstate or international smuggling.

* If something is legal, under the current twisted interpretation of the ICC it can be regulated and banned. Anything banned, though, is no longer involved in real commerce and therefore is no longer subject to the ICC.
 
So if something illegal cannot be owned, how on earth can we nail people who illegally own anything. I can see it now: "I don't own that bale in my trunk."

Fascinating!
 
So if something illegal cannot be owned, how on earth can we nail people who illegally own anything. I can see it now: "I don't own that bale in my trunk."
Click to expand...
Then it's called possession. The law as written doesn't need to prove ownership, just possession.
 
Fred Hansen wrote:
Then it's called possession. The law as written doesn't need to prove ownership, just possession.
Click to expand...

Correct as far as it goes. Yet the Court has upheld various searches, to produce the evidence of possession, by relying upon property law. Jacobsen; Placer; and the latest, Caballes. No property rights, no expectation of privacy. No privacy, no need for warrant. All of this, based upon the premise that commerce was somehow involved, in order to impose the original law upon the states, via that settled ruling in Wickard.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that Congress can not impose bans on products that move in lnterstate commerce. What I am saying is that Congress has no authority when the product moves only in instrastate commerce. This is the case in both Raisch and Stewart. Here, the 9th Circuit was correct to overturn portions of Wickard. Until the product passes into interstate commerce, actually and not hypothetically, the Feds have no jurisdiction on possession. Wickard changed all of that. Now, the mere hypothetical is cause for jurisdiction.

Under the Doctrine of Federalism, the National Government can not interfere in commerce that is intrastate only. But because of Wickard, the Federal powers were expanded far beyond mere federalism.
 
By Fred Hanson
"I avoid drugs stronger than aspirin like the plague."

It is nice to be able to avoid drugs. However many cannot. I am curious Fred. Have you ever undergone chemotherapy for cancer ? or lived with someone who has?

Curious

NukemJim
 
When I was in high school, a lot of the kids smoked.

Nobody went occupational.

Today, DARE is everywhere.

And the kids are medicated.

And they need metal detectors at the doors.
 
It is nice to be able to avoid drugs. However many cannot. I am curious Fred. Have you ever undergone chemotherapy for cancer ? or lived with someone who has?
Click to expand...
I've had close family members die from cancer. Do you want the PG horror stories, or the unrated versions?

But first tell me what any sob story I might tell would have to do with a rational argument about the law. Emotions have their place. A Court of law (or arguments about courts) isn't one of them.

Their are plenty of arguments about the legality of dope that are honestly brought and have merit. The one brought up by Antipitas is particularly intriguing. The last thing I want is to have our laws decided by who has the most compelling sob story. Next thing I know the government will pass a law saying I have to buy everyone a fluffy bunny. :barf:
 
Bunny Rights

Fred,

How *DARE* you tread upon my right to own a fluffy bunny!!

Now send it over!

And a little hat for him too. :p
 
This isn't really an off the wall digression.

In his 1885 autobiography President Grant discussed his participation in the Mexican-American war. In this context he mentioned his observations of the effect of prohibition laws. He told of how Mexico had banned the private sale of tobacco except for a limited, heavily taxed supply. This gave huge incentive for a thriving black market in the killer weed and in the process hooked most of the population. Then after a regime change the Mexicans dropped the ban and tobacco prices fell. He observed that most of them stopped smoking once it was easy for any peasant to grow his own. Basically the market collapsed and all the profiteers were driven out of business.

The moral of this story is that Federal drug bans or taxation which interfere with free market forces actually encourage black market illicit drug trade. Only history will tell just how much damage our own laws have done to our civilization, but I fear it will judge us harshly. :(
 
He observed that most of them stopped smoking once it was easy for any peasant to grow his own.
Click to expand...

And once smoking was no longer a way of saying F U to the government which was telling you not to smoke.... :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top