The Interstate Commerce Clause.

[GHook93]

I love when brain dead morons like the O/P think they know better than 200 years of jurists what the constitution says.

I wish they'd stop.

A little knowledge is a ridiculous thing.

Actually Justice Thomas brought this up in the last case the court considered on the matter. It involved someone growing marijuana in CA(?). He sold it in CA. The claim was that since there was no interstate commerce, the feds had nothing to do with it.
Thomas pointed out, in the minority opinion, that if the majority prevailed then effectively the clause would mean whatever the gov't wanted it to mean, there would be no restrictions at all.
I think no restrictions at all on what government can do is a very dangerous thing.

Your talking about the Gonzalez case! It had to deal SPECIFICALLY with medical marijuana! Are you telling me any marijuana grow in CA states in CA! LOL, that is ignorant! If commerce can effect interstate commerce in any way then the commerce clause reign's supreme! There are exception, such as a State can get around it by using its Police Powers!

 

[GHook93]

But they don't even have a little knowledge.

Insofar as government restriction is concerned, I think it depends on what you're restricting. I actually don't think the feds should interfere with medical marijuana laws in the states for exactly the reason you stated. (Though I admit I'm hard pressed to agree with Thomas... but that's a discussion for another thread).

I hate to say this though... most things mean what the Court says they do. That's the nature of a common law system.

Why doesn't Congress just pass a law allowing medical marijuana, rather than stating they'll stop enforcing? It's really silly on several levels.

There is already a law - its called the US Constitution and the Ninth Amendment. No authority was ever granted to fedgov to infringe upon our right to self medicate.

.

Another moron trying to preach constitution law, when he/she might be the most clueless on USMB!

 

[Contumacious]

Why doesn't Congress just pass a law allowing medical marijuana, rather than stating they'll stop enforcing? It's really silly on several levels.

There is already a law - its called the US Constitution and the Ninth Amendment. No authority was ever granted to fedgov to infringe upon our right to self medicate.

.

Another moron trying to preach constitution law, when he/she might be the most clueless on USMB!

Son-of-a-bitch, are you and RadiomanATL the same person?

.

 

[GHook93]

There is already a law - its called the US Constitution and the Ninth Amendment. No authority was ever granted to fedgov to infringe upon our right to self medicate.

.

Another moron trying to preach constitution law, when he/she might be the most clueless on USMB!

Son-of-a-bitch, are you and RadiomanATL the same person?

.

Yep he is my alter-ego!

Who is your alter-ego? Hitler!

 

[Contumacious]

Another moron trying to preach constitution law, when he/she might be the most clueless on USMB!

Son-of-a-bitch, are you and RadiomanATL the same person?

.

Yep he is my alter-ego!

Who is your alter-ego? Hitler!

Yeah, Hitler was also a Libertarian.

.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I think the original meaning of the clause would suffice, which was "to make regular." Meaning the federal government had the authority to enforce free trade amongst the states, and that was all.

Look KK read some case law, before you make up assumptions that are not only ignorant but foolish! We have a common law civil court systems! If you don't like it them move!

Case law interprets statutes, laws and YES the constitutions! The common law approach was adopted from England and is the basis for out civil law system.

Start with the Ogden case and work from there! If you want to be a lawyer, maybe you should start BY GOING TO LAW SCHOOL!

I don't want to be a lawyer.

At any rate, history tells us what the interstate commerce clause is supposed to be, and it's certainly not a one size fits all government grower. The Articles of Confederation's biggest flaw was probably the fact that it didn't enforce free trade amongst the several states, and that is why the Constitution had the interstate commerce clause. The only power this gives to the federal government is to enforce free trade, not restrict trade, and not anything else. Now the Supreme Court, being a part of the federal government, likes to interpret the interstate commerce clause in a way that gives the federal government more power than it's supposed to have.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Who the fuck care how federal bureaucrats define marihuana?

.

Since it tears your argument to shreds, I would think you would Comatose.

Must be that FAS kicking in again.

They have no constitutional authority to define what is or is not a medicine.

.

Apparently they do...and have. Perhaps you should petition your Congressman to change the law that's been on the books for almost 100 years.

 

[Contumacious]

Since it tears your argument to shreds, I would think you would Comatose.

Must be that FAS kicking in again.

They have no constitutional authority to define what is or is not a medicine.

.

Apparently they do...and have. .

Criminals always find ways to usurp powers and impose their will. It's called the "M4 Carbine" Amendment.

.

 

[Rothbardian]

They have no constitutional authority to define what is or is not a medicine.

.

Apparently they do...and have. .

Criminals always find ways to usurp powers and impose their will. It's called the "M4 Carbine" Amendment.[/URL]

.

You realize that is an MP5 in the picture, right?

 

[The Rabbi]

Apparently they do...and have. .

Criminals always find ways to usurp powers and impose their will. It's called the "M4 Carbine" Amendment.[/URL]

.

You realize that is an MP5 in the picture, right?

Yes indeedy. And with his finger dangerously close to the trigger, pointed at the man.
NRA Rules:
1) Never point the gun at something you are not prepared to kill
2) Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire.

 

[Contumacious]

Apparently they do...and have. .

Criminals always find ways to usurp powers and impose their will. It's called the "M4 Carbine" Amendment.[/URL]

.

You realize that is an MP5 in the picture, right?

Criminals always find ways to usurp powers and impose their will. It's called the "MP5 Carbine" Amendment.

 

[loosecannon]

I love when brain dead morons like the O/P think they know better than 200 years of jurists what the constitution says.

I wish they'd stop.

that's pathetic. 200 years of jurists have allowed the interpretation of the constitution to creep into directions it was never intended to creep.

The original intent of the constitution was that the people and the states would revise it occasionally to adapt it to changing times. Not that the SC would be the sole authority over it's interpretation.

Never once have we invoked a constitutional convention.

 

[Contumacious]

Interstate commerce clause is going to have to be correctly re-interpreted by the supreme court one day because the way it is being interpreted is giving congress incredible power to do everything. .

"The original intent of the Commerce Clause was to make "normal" or "regular" commerce between the states; thus it was designed to promote trade and exchange not restrict it. Further, it was specifically aimed at preventing the states from enacting impediments to the free flow of "commerce" such as tariffs, quotas and taxes. And since the explicit language of the CSA, like all economic regulation, interferes with the free flow of commerce, it is inherently antithetical to the original intent of the Commerce Clause. (Whether the law could be legitimized by reference to the "police powers" of the state is another matter)."

.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I love when brain dead morons like the O/P think they know better than 200 years of jurists what the constitution says.

I wish they'd stop.

And we love it when brain dead faux lawyas run their pie holes over that of which they nothing.

 

[GHook93]

I love when brain dead morons like the O/P think they know better than 200 years of jurists what the constitution says.

I wish they'd stop.

LOL I agree! They think we are 50 independent countries living under an Foreign Union, when in fact we are 50 interdependent states living under One American Union! Interstate commerce is a very very complex issue and must be treated as such. I challenge you to read the cases!

Its self explanatory to me:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3: Give Congress the Sole power to

“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes..."

I challenge the O/P to read Gibbons v. Ogden it was a 1819 or 1820 case and come back and say it wasn't correct. All CC cases have stemmed from it.

Also to the O/P read up on the Dormant Commerce Clause, its just as important!