Comments on: Raich v. Ashcroft http://www.davejustus.com/2004/11/30/raich-v-ashcroft/ None Sine Causa Fri, 05 Dec 2008 04:51:45 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: Dave Justus http://www.davejustus.com/2004/11/30/raich-v-ashcroft/#comment-526 Dave Justus Thu, 02 Dec 2004 17:22:00 +0000 http://www.davejustus.com/2004/11/30/raich-v-ashcroft/#comment-526 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. 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.

]]> By: honestpartisan http://www.davejustus.com/2004/11/30/raich-v-ashcroft/#comment-525 honestpartisan Thu, 02 Dec 2004 16:17:00 +0000 http://www.davejustus.com/2004/11/30/raich-v-ashcroft/#comment-525 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’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.

]]> By: Dave Justus http://www.davejustus.com/2004/11/30/raich-v-ashcroft/#comment-524 Dave Justus Thu, 02 Dec 2004 11:41:00 +0000 http://www.davejustus.com/2004/11/30/raich-v-ashcroft/#comment-524 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. 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.

]]> By: cubicle http://www.davejustus.com/2004/11/30/raich-v-ashcroft/#comment-523 cubicle Thu, 02 Dec 2004 00:22:00 +0000 http://www.davejustus.com/2004/11/30/raich-v-ashcroft/#comment-523 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? 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?

]]> By: Dave Justus http://www.davejustus.com/2004/11/30/raich-v-ashcroft/#comment-522 Dave Justus Wed, 01 Dec 2004 19:35:00 +0000 http://www.davejustus.com/2004/11/30/raich-v-ashcroft/#comment-522 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. 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.

]]> By: MacBoar http://www.davejustus.com/2004/11/30/raich-v-ashcroft/#comment-521 MacBoar Wed, 01 Dec 2004 01:20:00 +0000 http://www.davejustus.com/2004/11/30/raich-v-ashcroft/#comment-521 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. 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.

]]>