Raich v. Ashcroft
Here is a great resource on the Raich v. Ashcroft Supreme Court case. Basically the case is about whether the Federal Government has the power to regulate medical marijuana under the inter-state commerce clause of the constitution even if the activitiy in question neither crosses state boundaries or is commercial in nature. My personal belief is that the constitution doesn't give the Federal Government the right to outlaw drugs even when the activity is commercial and crosses state boundaries (thats why we needed an ammendment to outlaw liquor after all) but regardless of that, this case is very interesting, and probably the most important case the Court has heard in a while. This bit here gives a feel for how important this case is:
I've seen nothing in the Government's materials that gives them a good answer to the question "If we overturn Raich, can you name any activity that is outside the reach of the Federal government?"Should the Government win this case, Federalism will be effectively dead. (via Caffeine Dreams)
posted by Dave Justus | 11/30/2004 05:02:00 PM
6 Comments:
The Libertarian in me just laughs my ass off!!! Here the Govt wants to control what the states legalize and/or regulate while at the same time touting the 'states rights' when it concerns same-sex marriage. It would be truly laughable if it were not so sad. After all, it' not just one or two states to pass Medical Marijuana, it's 20 percent!
If Scalia and Thomas vote against this, they are hypocrites.
I would hope that the court will be unanimous for Raich. As far as I can tell, although I'm certainly not a lawyer, this is an obvious case.
well seeing how the federal goverment has the power to regulate they food that you grow on you own land and sell (even if it is a small amount) given historical precedent this case should kill federalism easilly, but if this case is as clear cut as you say dave, what will be the results of it if they side of state's rights is taken?
The effect if the court sides with the States rights argument will depend a lot on the logic they use for their decision. If they go for a narrow ruling (as is probably most likely) it will set precendent that at least in non-commercial non-interstate activities the Federal Government has no jurisdiction.
If they rule more expansively it might have greater effect on other practices (theoretically it could undermine much of the Drug war and other federal programs) but I think this is very unlikely.
I'm against the drug war, too, but on the merits rather than on constitutional grounds. The interstate commerce clause is the basis for a variety of congressional acts, from minimum wage laws to wheat quotas to the public accommodation provisions of the Civil Rights ACt of 1964. Since I take the Oliver Wendell Holmes view that "the Constitution was written for people with differing views" (from his Lochner dissent), I believe that, as much as possible, decisions on these issues should be made by democratically-elected legislatures rather than unelected judges.
I am against the Drug war for both reasons.
HonestPartisan said: "I believe that, as much as possible, decisions on these issues should be made by democratically-elected legislatures rather than unelected judges."
While I agree with that, only a Judge can decide which of two competing legislatures has juridiction. In this case, does the California Legislature have the right to control this activity or does the U.S. Congress have this right.
Post a Comment
<< Home