The End of States Rights

[Xiahou]

The place to direct your attention, if you really want to see medical marijuana made legal is simple: the Congress and Executive branches. It's the laws of Congress and their enforcement by the Executive that are the real problem here. If Congress changes the drug laws so that exemptions are made for state medical marijuana, then there will be no more problem.

This is really more of a political problem than a legal one. The Court probably made the right decision on the basis of current Constitutional interpretations... even if we don't morally agree with the effect that that decision will have on the public.

Exactly- if people want this changed petition your federal congress to change the federal law. I see no problem with this decision.

I'm all for decentralization of power and states rights, but shouldn't it be done via legislative reforms instead of judicial decision? I'd much rather see judges meddle less.

[Pindar]

Exactly- if people want this changed petition your federal congress to change the federal law. I see no problem with this decision.

That is right.

I'm all for decentralization of power and states rights, but shouldn't it be done via legislative reforms instead of judicial decision? I'd much rather see judges meddle less.

I agree. The Court didn't meddle in this case. The Fed. (Attorney General) challenged California's law. This made it a Federal issue for the Courts.

[Samurai Waki]

Doesn't really apply to me, but the Magistrate here is not very lax on those possessing marijuana or any other drugs, simply because this area seems to be rather rampant with drug smugglers moving between Columbia and Florida. RN Cayman has something like 20 Patrol Boats, 4 Lynx Gunships, and a Couple of Scout Planes running all the time and busting smugglers on a daily basis.

I do however agree that Federal Government needs to stop excersizing it's right to meddle in domestic affairs, and overriding state bills. Feds need to be more concerned about economic and foreign affairs...in which case the feds haven't been doing too good of a job anyway if you look at it from a neutral or liberal viewpoint.
It's kind of funny mentioning Liberals wanting more powerful federal government, and conservatives wanting less government... isn't when right-wing conservatives who want more government, moving more towards the alignment of national-socialism?

[Steppe Merc]

I'm with the States Rights people. Go marijiuana! Allow States to legalize it for at least the medicinal people. Washington has no right to say whether or not people should smoke at all, but especially when they overide a law that allows people to.

[KukriKhan]

Exactly- if people want this changed petition your federal congress to change the federal law. I see no problem with this decision.

I'm all for decentralization of power and states rights, but shouldn't it be done via legislative reforms instead of judicial decision? I'd much rather see judges meddle less.

I saw it rather as an opportunity for the Supremes to undo the 1930's-era meddling it had done in over-extending Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce, when the activities involved were neither interstate, nor commercial.

They (the Court) missed that chance to return Congress and the Executive to the powers enumerated in the Constitution, and leave the rest to the States vs 'Big Brother Knows Best, and you may petition His Highness, the President and his advisory Council for reform measures.'

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Anther problem we can blae on FDR It was he pushing his New Deal through .over the objections of the supreme court I believe that started this whole train of thougt.

Heres what was in the link I posted earlier. Seems almost all the rightwing radio hosts are up in arms over this. This is Rush's take on the subject.

More Evidence of Out of Control Judiciary
June 6, 2005



BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
(AP) "Federal authorities may prosecute sick people whose doctors prescribe marijuana to ease pain, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, concluding that state laws don't protect users from a federal ban on the drug. The decision is a stinging defeat for marijuana advocates who had successfully pushed 10 states to allow the drug's use to treat various illnesses. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing the 6-3 decision, said that Congress could change the law to allow medical use of marijuana."

Now, this was a closely watched case, and it was an appeal by the Bush administration in a case that it lost in 2003, and at issue was whether the prosecution of medical marijuana users under the federal Controlled Substances Act was constitutional. Under the Constitution, Congress may pass laws regulating a state's economic activity so long as it involves interstate commerce, and that's what's interesting about this because there arguably is no interstate commerce in this. If you are sick in California -- forget that this is marijuana, I want to talk about this on the constitutional side. When I saw this ruling, you know, I kind of chuckled. I wondered what the libs are going to do with this. How are the libs are going to react to this?

Let's say that you are sick, you have cancer and your doctors prescribe medical marijuana for you in California, whatever state that made it legal. So you go get the marijuana, however it's delivered to you, and you use it to alleviate your pain or whatever it is you're suffering, your nausea, whatever it works for, I'm not sure. I don't see where the interstate commerce is there. In fact, folks, it's hilarious to read Justice John Paul Stevens lecturing about democracy because he's the leading judicial supremacist on the Supreme Court, and he routinely leads the effort to rewrite federal law even if it involves using foreign law. And in this case he basically said federal government trumps state law, and if Congress wants to change it they can go back and refuse to write a law in this case. It's sort of hilarious. But I want to look at this from the constitutional viewpoint, because look, whether it's legal or not, marijuana, that's not the point I want to get into here and I'm saying it because I don't want phone calls all day from the legalize marijuana crowd. I understand you're out there, but I don't want to deal with it. I mean, I understand you believe what you believe, that's not the point of this ruling to me, not in a constitutional sense.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT
All right, federal authorities may prosecute sick people who smoke marijuana on doctor's orders, Supreme Court ruling today. Let's just look at this a moment from a constitutional viewpoint. I've had just the barest amount of time to read the opinion, but based on the news story here, the Associated Press story, the majority's decision, it was 6-3, by the way, the majority's decision was based on the federal commerce clause. Now, for interstate commerce to occur, there needs to be a transaction between someone in a legal transaction between someone in one state and someone in another state. In this case, the product is home grown, it's used within the state, and it's used under state authorization. I'm not commenting on whether I like the idea or not. It's not the point, but the people of these ten states voted for this. You know, once again states' rights have just been squished here by the federal Supreme Court, the US Supreme Court. So, you know, take the issue out of the argument here for just a second. The question is this: What does this have to do with interstate commerce legally?

The answer is nothing. This opinion does not deal with the possibility that patient A in a state gets a legal dose of marijuana then sends it to a buddy who's not sick in another state. Doesn't deal with that. That's not what is being adjudicated here. I'll tell you where this case goes back to. This all goes back to the New Deal, folks, that is where the Supreme Court had to come up with a way to uphold all the programs that Congress was passing even though they had no power to do so under the Constitution.

Remember, the Constitution gives the federal government limited enumerated powers, and after Roosevelt tried to pack the court, the court became far more political and supportive of his agenda. Now, there was a 1942 case Wickard vs. Filburn, and in that case the Supreme Court issued what is a ridiculous decision, holding that a farmer who had grown wheat on his own farm for his own use and consumption and which was never sold or traded out of the state, was nonetheless involved in interstate commerce because the fact that he did not sell his wheat out of state or purchase wheat out of state for his own use, somehow effected interstate commerce. This is what they ruled. In other words, there would no longer be any limits to the federal government's power to regulate state and private economic activity. Now, this is not what the framers intended or what the Constitution provides. But this is what the 1942 Wickard vs. Filburn Supreme Court case resulted in. So we have people who went to the polls in several states, they voted to allow the state regulation of medical marijuana. Now, you put the politics of this aside and which political forces are on one side or the other, put even the policy aside, this is a constitutional issue for the court. So, you know, I will be interested in knowing more about the case, and I will reserve ultimate judgment until we read the arguments in full but based on this news story, this Associated Press story, you know, this is how I see it. Now, the court did in fact, we know this much, the court did in fact rely heavily on Wickard vs. Filburn in making this ruling. That's the case which brought us the New Deal, that is the case which made the New Deal constitutional, if you will, 1942, commerce clause includes commerce solely within a state. The interstate commerce clause deals with the commerce among the several states, but the 1942 Wickard vs. Filburn case said no, no, no, no, interstate commerce can be commerce within a state. But it's hilarious to read Justice Stevens lecturing about democracy because he's the guy that wants to look at foreign law a lot, writes his own law from the bench. He did say in this case if Congress wants to change this they can write a law specific to it.

The other reason Congress has to write a law specific to it is because the US Supreme Court in 1942, in order to authorize the New Deal and make it constitutional, went ahead and changed the Constitution without there being such a law on the books. So Congress now has to go back and correct what the 1942 Supreme Court did if they want to limit interstate commerce to one state or prohibit interstate commerce from including one state. It's now up to Congress by this decision to go back and say, "No, no, no, no, Wickard vs. Filburn, that's not what we meant. If a state passes a law on medical marijuana, and the people there vote for it, the representatives vote for it, that's not interstate commerce." That's how convoluted things have become, folks. The court might say the law is unconstitutional, if Congress did try to -- yeah, just because Justice Stevens said Congress will have to write a new law doesn't mean that this court would find a new law constitutional if it contradicts one of its own decisions. And this is where you get into this whole argument, "Do we have any recourse to deal with the courts, even with our elected officials?" I mean, in this case, Justice Stevens in his majority opinion clearly says Congress needs to go back, they want to make this legal and rewrite it. But it's convoluted because without the previous Supreme Court case -- I hope I'm making this understandable. It's so crazy, you might think, "Rush, there's something you're missing here. How can they do this, how can they say interstate commerce is state commerce? How can they say that?" They did. It was crucial, folks, in establishing the New Deal, and by the way, making the New Deal constitutional is part of institutionalizing the New Deal and its ideological underpinnings, which are liberalism, so it's a convoluted case.
Again, I don't want to spend any time today, Mr. Winterble, on legal marijuana, illegal marijuana, it's happened before on this program and when it starts... I mean, these calls last for a week, so I just don't want to go there. By the way, one of the reasons Janice Rogers Brown -- by the way, her vote comes up this week, her vote could come as early as Wednesday with William Pryor, perhaps, on Friday. Now, Janice Rogers Brown, in that famous speech that we posted on our website and I read excerpts from on this program about three weeks ago, she questioned the whole constitutional underpinning via Supreme Court decisions of the New Deal and that's why Ted Kennedy and others just threw up their arms in opposition, how could she dare do this? She says when the Constitution was altered by the US Supreme Court in this case and others in order to legalize the New Deal and make it constitutional by twisting and bending the Constitution that's when she says an aura of -- used the word socialism -- was sanctioned as a means of governing the country and that's why she has been under such vicious assault.

There was another Supreme Court decision today, and it is this. "The Supreme Court, expanding the scope of a landmark federal disabilities law, ruled Monday that foreign cruise lines sailing in U.S. waters must provide better access for passengers in wheelchairs. The narrow 6-3 decision is a victory for disabled rights advocates, who said inadequate ship facilities inhibited their right to 'participate fully in society.'" Here's the majority. Kennedy, who wrote; John Paul Stevens; David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer. The dissent was written by Justice Scalia. He argued that extending the federal law to foreign ships, "will create international discord and is wrong because Congress did not explicitly call for it. The ruling should leave no opening for ships to be required to change their amenities to fit the laws of each country they visit," he said. This is sort of the international law argument in reverse, if you will, because Scalia said not only should we not import foreign law into our decisions, we shouldn't impose our law on other nations. Now, seems to me that Scalia is being quite consistent here. The others are not. Now, I know many of you say, "Rush, this is harmless, so what, they should have to modify this." It's all a matter of law and the Constitution, folks. Take your feelings out of these things and take each issue out of it, and examine what the court's doing, you have a better understanding of why so many people are concerned and why so many people say the judiciary is out of control and needs to be reined in.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Talking about Justice Stevens saying that Congress wants to change the Supreme Court ruling today, they need to go write a new law. I was in error. He was not suggesting write a law that would conflict with the previous Supreme Court decision. What he was saying was, if Congress doesn't like this they can write a law legalizing marijuana use for medical purposes. So that's his suggested remedy, Congress can write a law legalizing marijuana use if they don't like this ruling.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Everett in Elk Grove, California. We go back to the phones. Welcome, sir, nice to have you with us.

CALLER: Dittos, Rush.

RUSH: Thank you, sir.

CALLER: I am disabled but I think that law -- or the court's judgment isn't exporting our law because I think any ship or airplane that comes into our waters or on our land needs to be obey our laws. I want to take away -- let's say it's not the disability act. I woke up the second Friday in May of '69 totally blind so I have a sensitivity to disabled people, but let's take that law out, and let's say the boat was licensed in a country where it's legal to have sex with 12-year-olds, we wouldn't be able to -- when it came into New York harbor, we wouldn't be able to do anything about it. So I think they should apply, and I don't really think it's exporting --

RUSH: Now, I don't think that's the point. I don't think anybody would be drawing that conclusion. I don't know that any country has sex with 12-year-olds legal, particularly on their cruise ships. If somebody does, I know a bunch of people are going to be signing up. I don't know them personally, but I mean you just know that if that's legal you'll have some people signing up for this. It doesn't happen. See, this is the problem. This is the problem. We've got somebody who's disabled and that trumps everything. And I said, forget the issue. Not only in this, but on the medical marijuana. This is an exercise, it was an attempted exercise in explaining why some people are upset about what some think is an out-of-control judiciary that needs to be reined in. On the one hand we have a Supreme Court, which says, "Yeah, it's totally fine to incorporate foreign law into US constitutional law as we decide cases here, it's totally fine to consult foreign thinking if we can't find any." By the way, this is all about the personal policy preference of the justices, so we can't find anything in American law that backs up what I want to do, go find it in international law. Then they import it, bammo, we can do it because we're the Supreme Court. Scalia says no, you shouldn't do that. By the same token, if we're going to say that the Americans for Disabilities Act applies to ships that are made and registered in foreign countries, then we ought to be able to say that every other one of our laws applies to any business that does business in the United States or with Americans and so forth, and look, I'm in the majority on this. It was a 6-3 case, and even my buddy Clarence Thomas was in the majority on this case. Scalia was the only one dissenting in this, but it may not even be the best example, because nobody here is against helping out disabled people. That's why this is such a tough thing to argue on this side of it because it's such an emotional case, or situation, disability. But, you know, the Americans with Disability Act has a lot more to it than just wheelchair access or access for blind people. The Americans with Disability Act has been used to say alcoholism is a disease and you can't fire anybody for it, so technically a cruise line could have a drunk waiter and they couldn't get rid of him when he's working in US waters if you're going to go this way. It's up to you, folks, your country. You know, I got mine.

END TRANSCRIPT
(SJMN: Plaintiffs in medical marijuana case to defy Supreme Court ruling)
(CSM: ''No'' on medical marijuana use)
(AP: Rehnquist Backs Medical Marijuana Patients)
(US court: Government can bar medical marijuana use)
(Taxpayer Group Criticizes Medical Marijuana Decision)

[Steppe Merc]

Wow. Right wingers for marijiuana...

[Don Corleone]

Not in favor of pot, in favor of making the guys in charge play by the rules. Personally, I don't think the Federal government needs to get into local crime & regulation issues. Pindar & others think it's a good thing to have the Federal government calling all the shots.

[Steppe Merc]

I know. But it's funny. However, I don't understand how one can be a supporter of states rights and not of individual rights. To me, the individual's right to smoke pot (as an example) outweighs that of the state's rights to allow sick people to smoke pot.
But then, I'm not normal.

[Duke Malcolm]

Doesn't really apply to me, but the Magistrate here is not very lax on those possessing marijuana or any other drugs, simply because this area seems to be rather rampant with drug smugglers moving between Columbia and Florida. RN Cayman has something like 20 Patrol Boats, 4 Lynx Gunships, and a Couple of Scout Planes running all the time and busting smugglers on a daily basis.

The Cayman Islands has its own branch of the Navy? Damn, I wanted to be Commander of Her Majesty's Forces in the Cayman Islands...
Does the Cayman Islands have the same drug laws as here?

[Don Corleone]

Be careful with the term 'right-wing'. It's a wide breadth of people. William F. Buckley, editor of National Review, has written some of the best arguments in favor of abandoning the 'War on Drugs' out there. For much the reasons you cite, an adherence to individual rights & liberty. If you want to ruin your life by smoking pot, that's your right. Just don't expect me to fund your lifestyle when you can't hold down a job.

My point in this case is not pot is good or pot is bad. My point was that the Federal government, citing this case as precedence, is pretty much unfettered, free to do and regulate anything they damn well please, and tough luck if you don't like it.

[Steppe Merc]

Excellent point. And yeah, I can see how the people like Gawain would be for the legaliziation, and the total freedom of people.

If you want to ruin your life by smoking pot, that's your right. Just don't expect me to fund your lifestyle when you can't hold down a job.

Of course. I think that if a person can't handle their drugs, and they end up loosing their job, they should not get any sort of support from the government. Only truly poor people that have consitently tried to get a job ought to recieve government support.

[Pindar]

Not in favor of pot, in favor of making the guys in charge play by the rules. Personally, I don't think the Federal government needs to get into local crime & regulation issues. Pindar & others think it's a good thing to have the Federal government calling all the shots.

Don,

Where did I write it's a good thing for the Federal Government to be calling all the shots? What I have pointed out is that States are ultimately beholden to the Federal Government. They are not independent polities. This means Federal law has an impact. I , like Justice Scalia, recognize this as a basic point of our nation's law. The Court's decision recognizes this standard.

Now whether doobies should be legal or illegal is not for the courts to decide. It is for legislatures to decide. State legislatures decide for states and Congress decides for the nation. If Congress wishes to legalize doobies so be it. If they wish to push for an enforced ban, then the Feds will have to provide resources to do so. It does not fall to the states to do so. Regardless, those are issues that are beyond the scope of the Court's ruling.

I understand your dislike of the Courts, but not all rulings are equally misapplied or unjust.

[Don Corleone]

Pindar,

We had the whole debate about the 10th Ammendment, and what it means. You turned around and cited a case saying that essentially, the 10th Ammendment is a bunch of hot air, because the Congress can make any laws they want to. I disagree with that.

[Redleg]

Pindar,

We had the whole debate about the 10th Ammendment, and what it means. You turned around and cited a case saying that essentially, the 10th Ammendment is a bunch of hot air, because the Congress can make any laws they want to. I disagree with that.

In essence the 10th Admendment is circumvented when the Federal Legislative body makes a Federal Law. That is within the power of that body, and is in fact its right. By making Federal Law the Federal Government must provide the means and ways to enforce or accomplish that law.

Citing the Interstate commerce aspects of the Consitution to enforce a drug law is not the presedence I would like to see from the Federal Government and the Federal Courts System - but it is within the aspects of my understanding of the consitution.

Frankly there are better subjects that show that the courts and the Federal Government have circumvented parts of the United States Constitution. The Emerancy War Powers Act of 1973 is a prime examble of the Federal Legistlative branch removing itself from a governing requirment and responsiblity of the Legislative body. And the Court has never brought that into focus for Judicial Review. Several others bear in mind - but this one does not.

[Pindar]

Pindar,

We had the whole debate about the 10th Amendment, and what it means. You turned around and cited a case saying that essentially, the 10th Amendment is a bunch of hot air, because the Congress can make any laws they want to. I disagree with that.

I cited no case that said the 10th Amendment was hot air or that Congress can make any law they want to. I did explain the 10th Amendment does not apply since the crux of the debate revolves around an enumerated power. This power is the Commerce Clause found in Article One of the Constitution. I then showed how this has been understood from at least 1824. I also tried to point out how this naturally follows if one recognizes the Supremacy Clause which is found in Article Six of the Constitution.

One can reject the Constitution. One can reject an interpretation of the Constitution, but it seems problematic to argue that yesterday's decision was somehow an end of State's rights when it is a legal standard that traces back to the early part of the Nineteenth Century.

[Don Corleone]

Okay, maybe we're failing to communicate, and it sounds like I'm annoying you. So, in 50 words or less, please no 5 page explanations, how does the interstate commerce clause jibe with a limited federal government? If Congress can enact laws on anything involving interstate commerce, that's 95% of anybody's daily business. This new ruling gives them the last 5%.

I say that, because this ruling relates to a case that specifically does NOT involve interstate commerce. The Medicinal Marijuana laws were carefully written to avoid the Interstate Commerce Clause. And you say, too bad, State Governments are subservient to the Federal Government. Then, you take issue when I suggest that you support an expanded Federal Government. Well, which is it? Should Congress be limited to it's Constitutionally defined roles, or should it be free to do whatever it deems appropriate on the latest whim? In truth, if Congress, the White House and the Supreme Court were fulfilling the spirit of the 10th ammendment, and not just having the Supreme Court grant them new powers every year or two, wouldn't they restrict their laws and governances to those roles enumerated by the Constitution?

Finally, where in the whole document does it say that Congress is in charge of drug policy, or even enforcing morality for that matter? If Congress decided that it wanted to dictate that each and every citizen must keep the grass in their lawn cut to no lower than 2", no higher than 3", according to your logic, what would stop them?

I'm am shocked and amazed that Scalia voted with the majority on this one. I guess Thomas and Rehquist are the only two true conservatives left on the bench.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

If Congress decided that it wanted to dictate that each and every citizen must keep the grass in their lawn cut to no lower than 2", no higher than 3", according to your logic, what would stop them?

I would guess nothing. Look at this law.

FRIDAY, June 4, 2004, 9:24 a.m.
Getting Government Out Of Our Bathrooms

As the federal government has grown larger and larger over the last several decades, its reach into the lives of everyday Americans has become more and more intrusive. There’s no better example of the current power of Big Brother than the Energy Policy Act of 1992. For those who may be unaware, this is the federal law which regulates the amount of water that you can use in your bathroom.

Prior to the early 1990s, the standard toilet in the United States used 3.5 gallons of water per flush. Effective January 1, 1994, federal law mandated that toilets manufactured in the United States could only use 1.6 gallons of water per flush. This is a nationwide standard that applies regardless of whether or not a water shortage exists in the particular area of the country that a person lives.

For homes built after 1990, the low flush toilet mandate is really not that much of an issue. In newer homes, sewer lines and drain systems are designed and built to accommodate the smaller amount of water available to transport waste. On the other hand, for owners of many older homes whose drain lines were built in reliance on 3.5 gallon toilets, the federal requirements have been a disaster.

Anyone who lives in an older home that has been retro-fitted with newer low flush toilets can testify that they are a source of never ending problems. Whether it’s the need to flush multiple times (thereby negating any water savings) or the need for repeated sewer line cleaning (because of insufficient water to carry the waste to the municipal system), low flush toilets are a plumbers’ dream and a homeowners nightmare. Nevertheless, in a capitulation to the environmental lobby, the government elected to thrust itself into our bathrooms. This is, of course, working out about as well as most federal government efforts to micro-manage our everyday lives do.

Unquestionably, toilets are the greatest water users in the home. At the same time however, the federal government does not tell people how many times they can shower in a given day or how many loads of laundry they can do in a particular week. If the federal government has the right to regulate the size of our toilets in the name of water conservation, will the next step be time clocks on our showers?

To the extent water usage by toilets is a problem, it is a problem best solved by operation of market forces as opposed to government regulation. As noted earlier, low flush toilets are more than adequate for most newer homes and some older ones. For homes where low flush toilets do the job, there is absolutely no reason for homeowners to pay the added costs associated with the extra water usage of the larger capacity toilets. On the other hand, for those who need more water and are willing to pay for it, there is no reason why the federal government should deny this option.

The ban on the United States manufacture of adequate capacity toilets has had a number of interesting side effects. Every weekend, people regularly scour yard sales looking for older toilets adequate to address their needs. Additionally, since full capacity toilets are still manufactured in Canada, a mini-black market is thriving as Americans look to our neighbors to the north to solve our bathroom woes. Just as Wisconsin residents used to make “oleo runs” to Illinois to avoid outdated government restrictions on margarine, a new class of smugglers has been created and forced by government policy to make “toilet runs” to Canada.

The flush toilet issue is just one of many examples of unwanted and unnecessary government intrusion into people’s lives. Current FDA regulations prohibit Americans from buying prescription drugs from Canadian pharmacies even though an identical drug costs up to 60% more if purchased in the United States. If the market were allowed to work and Americans were allowed to buy drugs from Canada legally, drug prices in this country would necessarily decrease in response to the competition. Nevertheless, misguided government policy deprives the consumer of the right to choose where they’ll buy their drugs just like it deprives them of the right to choose what equipment they can use in their bathrooms.

Government policy on flush toilets and prescription drugs are classic examples of why the least government is frequently the best government. Bureaucrats in Washington are simply ill-suited to know what’s best for a senior citizen living in an 80 year old home in Wauwatosa, Wisconsin. If that senior citizen wants cheaper prescription drugs in her medicine chest and a toilet that works, what gives the bureaucrat the right to say “no”?

There’s an old saying that goes: “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns”. An updated version could well be: “Since cheaper prescription drugs and toilets that work have been outlawed, only outlaws have them”. Personally, I’m hoping I can convince a senior citizen to pick me up a couple of 3.5 gallon toilets when she goes to Canada to score her heart medication. I wonder if that’s how Al Capone got started?

Do any of you believe the founding fathers wanted the federal government regulating how much water we can use in our toilets?

Heres another take on it

Moreover, no one is able to estimate the cost of all federal, state and local regulations. Most state and local regulations were not even included in our study.

Even so, we conservatively estimated that government regulation now costs the country more than $1 trillion per year ($1,064 billion). Total federal, state and local spending is now more than $2.6 trillion ($2,658 billion), for a total government cost of $3.7 trillion ($3,722 billion). This total cost of government is oppressive, depriving the American people of economic freedom and control over their own lives. At a minimum, the government is cutting your income and prosperity in half. What the government does with that money does not seem to be nearly worth this enormous cost. So much of what the government does can in fact be done far better outside its system of taxes, spending and regulation. For example, workers today can get a far better deal out of personal savings, investment and insurance accounts than through Social Security, a huge component of the federal government in itself. Such personal savings and insurance accounts also are the best solution for the collapsing Medicare program. Private sector employment is still far better for the poor than our still huge welfare system.

LINK

[Don Corleone]

Preach on brother Gawain.

[Pindar]

Okay, maybe we're failing to communicate, and it sounds like I'm annoying you. So, in 50 words or less, please no 5 page explanations, how does the interstate commerce clause jibe with a limited federal government? If Congress can enact laws on anything involving interstate commerce, that's 95% of anybody's daily business. This new ruling gives them the last 5%.

You are not annoying me. Sorry if it sounds like I'm annoyed.

The Interstate Commerce Clause was deemed so important it is found in Article One of the Constitution. Why? Because it is this exact authority that delineates a federal polity from a simple confederation. What does this mean? This means only the Federal Government can control commerce between states. If individual states could apply tariffs, or other duties, or declare legal transport status, it undercuts the very notion of nationhood.

The Federal government is the ultimate legal authority by necessity. Were it not so there could be no resolution short of war for any conflict between states. Even so, Federal authority is not without limit. Those limits are Constitutionally imposed. The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power. It is not an example of a Federal limitation. Federal limitation is found not only in the tripartite division between: Legislative, Executive and Judicial Branches and the general deference to popular sovereignty, but also in the interpreted scope of Congressional purview as declared by a non-legislative Federal branch: the Supreme Court. To whit: Congress cannot pass legislation that eliminates what is truly national and truly local. ( 1995: United States v. Lopez ) Passage of a national drug standard does not do this as enforcement remains entirely Federal.

Over 50 words but maybe still passable I hope.

I say that, because this ruling relates to a case that specifically does NOT involve interstate commerce. The Medicinal Marijuana laws were carefully written to avoid the Interstate Commerce Clause.

The law was not written very well given 1971 Perez v. United States clearly states: "Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce." Further, as I previously mentioned the Court held that the State has not demonstrated that they can effectively maintain a division between the legal distribution of marijuana and the general marijuana market. This should be obvious given patients were at liberty to grow their own weed. Should the State demonstrate a market control the case could be revisited.

Finally, where in the whole document does it say that Congress is in charge of drug policy, or even enforcing morality for that matter?

The Commerce Clause. Congress can speak to any issue involving business traffic, its legal standing or the effects on such traffic.

Legislation of morality is implicit in the very notion of law, case in point: making murder illegal.

I'm am shocked and amazed that Scalia voted with the majority on this one. I guess Thomas and Rehquist are the only two true conservatives left on the bench.

Your notion of the Judicial strain of conservatism is confused. Conservativism is deferring to the will of the people as determined by their chosen representatives, not appealing to Judicial fiat. In this case the people's representatives have spoken. This has force until there is a change in popular opinion. It is that simple.

[Don Corleone]

Alright man, I respect you too much to go much deeper with this. We're going to have to agree to disagree. Based on your definition, EVERYTHING is at the end of the day a commercial enterprise, and therefore, under Congress's thumb. Even if everything you say is accurate and correct, it sounds like a game rigged by lawyers, for lawyers, desgined to keep power at a level the people can't exercise it, i.e. in Washington, away from prying eyes at the State & local level. You are in affect telling me that the most cynical characterizations of our government are true, and what's more, exactly the way they should be. It's not the way we portray ourselves, and shame on us for being a bunch of hypocrites.

[Pindar]

Alright man, I respect you too much to go much deeper with this. We're going to have to agree to disagree.

Please ignore the sound of the jackboots that will be approaching your door shortly. You will feel only slight pain and soon will have the correct view of things.

[Don Corleone]

No kidding. As long as beer is still allowed in this New World Order you guys are creating for us...

Honestly, not a legal opinion, but a personal one, do you really think it's such a great idea to concentrate so much power in the hands of so few, who are so detached from the rest of the population up in DC?

[ichi]

Conservativism is deferring to the will of the people as determined by their chosen representatives, not appealing to Judicial fiat.

Classical conservatism is opposition to rapid change in governmental and societal institutions. This rapid change might be due to majoritarian impulses empowered through the legislative process.

In a case where rapid change through legislative action was thwarted by judicial review, the courts would be acting 'conservatively', and therefore the quoted definition above is a poor one. It confuses social attitudes with government mechanisms.

ichi

[Pindar]

Honestly, not a legal opinion, but a personal one, do you really think it's such a great idea to concentrate so much power in the hands of so few, who are so detached from the rest of the population up in DC?

I don't like arguing with Sicilians. You guys are scary. But I must tell you, Number Three really did suck.


A litigious society is a weakened society.

Concentrated power is always dangerous.

Local control is generally better than its opposite.

But, I make a distinction between stupid law and unjust law or law that is illegitimate.

The Supreme Court upholding this Federal law against medical doobies is an example of stupid law, but I understand the principle.

The Supreme Court creating a right to abortion in 1973 is an example of illegitimate law. The ruling is extra-legislative and therefore has no standing. If the Congress had passed a law allowing abortions my opinion would be different.

Law should be the product of the legislative Branch and thus subject to popular will. This is the touchstone of democracy.

What we've been discussing isn't really a lawyer created issue (accept for the Attorney General). Lawyer problems are typically civil.


(the jackboots will be there presently)

[Pindar]

In a case where rapid change through legislative action was thwarted by judicial review, the courts would be acting 'conservatively', and therefore the quoted definition above is a poor one. It confuses social attitudes with government mechanisms.

ichi

Judicial conservatism does not recongnize Judical Review as a legitimate use of the power of the Court. My basic definition is correct.

[ichi]

A judge is judicially conservative if he/she comes to a legal conclusion by following the letter of the law as closely as possible. This can include determining that a law contradicts other laws, or that a law is inconsistent with the Constitution.

Judicial activism, or positivism, is the result of a judge creating laws. It is not the result of judges striking down unconstitutional (or otherwise illegal) laws.

For example, if The Congress were to pass a law prohibiting more than 5 people to gather in one place, the court that struck down that law would be judicially conservative. A court that ruled that people must gather together would be judicially active.

ichi

[Xiahou]

Not entirely on topic, but since someone mentioned it.... I do think the recent decision on cruise ships and the Disabilities Act was out of line- judges creating something that wasn't there before. I could be wrong, because I haven't read the law, but I don't think there's anything in it to suggest it should apply in such a broad manner. I'm with Rush on that one.

[Samurai Waki]

The Cayman Islands has its own branch of the Navy? Damn, I wanted to be Commander of Her Majesty's Forces in the Cayman Islands...
Does the Cayman Islands have the same drug laws as here?

Yes RN Cayman is it's own district Branch of the Royal Navy... mostly as the main base for all British Forces needing to Serve in the Caribbean. The last time any large amount of British Forces or Royal Navy Forces stationed here was during the Faulklands War... Occasionally (about every 2 to 6 months) The HMS Invincible docks here for refueling and/or any necessary repairs before embarking back to Glasgow... The Invincible Makes it's run from Glasgow to Saint Helena Island to the Faulklands to RN Cayman and Back to Glasgow.
The Caymans being a Crown Colony (although it was offered it's independence in 1964 and Refused by the Cayman Parliament) is still subject to federal law in the United Kingdom. We Pay Taxes to the United Kingdom, and therefore we are Citizens of the United Kingdom. According to Cayman Parliamentary Act of 1982 we are also economic Subsidiaries of the United States, meaning the Caymanian Dollar is essentially legal tender of the United States, but not in the UK (much like Scottish or Northern Ireland Bank Currency). Because of our Economic Standpoint, we are also subject to the Pan-American Drug Enforcement Agencies and Laws... meaning USDEA (United States Drug Enforcement Agency) is the sole authority on all drug related matters, pertaining to the illegal smuggling of drugs into the United States.
In the Caymanian Parliamentary Act of 1991 we expelled the USDEA because British Parliament did not want the United States intervention on British Soil. The NDLEA (National Drug Law Enforcement Agency) of the UK took over all USDEA matters pertaining to the Island. In 1992 The NDLEA began seeing a trend in many wealthy Caymanian Natives actually benefitting from the Drug Routes, and the Cayman Islands had a nasty underground drug Mafia, thus SAS-12 began heading up Operations in detaining the Drug Barons. With a lot of success the SAS managed to annhilate the Drug Rings in the Cayman Islands, and has held a detachment of SAS in Cayman Brak since then. In 1993 The Caymanian Parliament held all residents of the Islands as Subject to any and all laws in the United Kingdom, and called for the RN to permanently patrol all the smuggling routes that may lead into or around the Cayman Islands... thus the large detachment of Royal Navy Patrol boats and Lynx Helicopters. Once a smuggler is detained by the RN, then they become a legal subject to the United States authorities... in the case of a legal citizen in the Island that has been caught, then we are bound by UK laws pertaining to drugs and any illegal narcotics or activity.
So although we still abide by UK laws, the ones involving drugs are very strictly enforced.

[Divinus Arma]

Hi, I usually stick to the RTW forums, but thought I would weigh in on this VERY important issue.

MJ be damned, I could care less. The greatest issue of the v. Raich case was indeed states rights.

With this finding, the supremacy clause and commerce clause jointly put an end to all State Power and Rights. Here is how:

Everything affects intrastate commerce as the Supreme Court now defines it. Consider this, property taxes set by state and local governmetns that are used to produce local revenue also affect the demand for housing. High property taxes (such as Mello Roos) suppress demand for housing in the high tax area. Property may be bought and sold by anyone, thus the purchases of investment properties by out-of-state residents is affected by state and local property taxes. Therefore, local taxes affect intrastate commerce and are at risk of being regulated by the Federal government.

While this example is overly simplistic, it demonstrates the potential power given to the federal government. In essence, we have just lost the concept of semi-autonomus states. If we wanted the federal government to have this much power in state affairs, we would have amended the constitution. Which, incidently, is why the framers may the constitution such a bitch to ammend. We a re on that slippery slope my amigos.

I truly fear for the future of my country. I do not like the direction that we are headed. Hell I am a Republican, and my Party doesn't even sound like itself anymore! We used to stand for individual and states rights and reduced government meddling. Now, the government only leaves business alone and stick its nose into the lives of the states and the individual.

And it isn't like we have a choice. The democrats are imploding! Examples: Democrats typically supported both Unions and illegal immigrant minorities, both of whom compete against each other. Democrats also represent minorities and pro-abortion types, but Mexicans are catholic and hate abortion, and so do baptist religious blacks! The comparisons go on and on.

We are so screwed.