cannabisnews.com: Another Label-Defying Ruling





Another Label-Defying Ruling
Posted by CN Staff on June 07, 2005 at 22:00:41 PT
By George F. Will
Source: Tribune Review
Washington, D.C. -- With the parties warring over the composition of the federal judiciary, and with a Supreme Court vacancy perhaps impending, Americans should use the court's end-of-term decisions as whetstones on which to sharpen their sense of the ambiguities in the categories -- "liberal," "conservative," "activist," "practitioner of judicial restraint" -- used when judges are discussed. Consider the case arising from the destruction, by agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration, of Diane Monson's homegrown marijuana plants, a case about which the court's two most conservative justices, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, disagreed.
Monson, and another woman using homegrown marijuana recommended by her doctors, sought an injunction against enforcement of the federal Controlled Substances Act. Both said they had a right to their plants under California's Compassionate Use Act. Passed overwhelmingly by referendum in 1996, that act allows marijuana use by individuals whose doctors recommend it for the relief of pain or nausea. But this law -- 10 other states have similar ones -- runs contrary to the federal statute. The two women argued against enforcement of that law, saying that the private use of homegrown marijuana has nothing to do with interstate commerce, hence Congress has no constitutional power to regulate it. On Monday the Supreme Court disagreed. In a 6-3 ruling, the court held that Congress' claim to exclusive regulatory authority over drugs, legal and illegal, fell well within its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce. This was predictable, given what the court said 63 years ago about an Ohio farmer's 239 bushels of homegrown wheat. That, used for food, seeds and feed for livestock, was raised and used entirely on Roscoe Filburn's farm. None of it entered intrastate, let alone interstate, commerce. So Filburn argued that although the 239 bushels exceeded his production quotas under the federal Agricultural Adjustment Act, they were none of the federal government's business and he refused to pay the stipulated penalty. A unanimous Supreme Court disagreed, arguing that the cumulative effect of even minor and local economic activities can have interstate consequences. The court said even a small quantity of grain "supplies a need of the man who grew it which would otherwise be reflected by purchases in the open market. Homegrown wheat in this sense competes with wheat in commerce." That said, clearly Congress' power under the Commerce Clause is vast enough to permit Congress to decide that the use of even homegrown marijuana can affect the interstate market. Writing for Monday's majority, Justice John Paul Stevens, perhaps the most liberal justice, was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Anthony Kennedy. Scalia concurred separately. Stevens said that one does not need "a degree in economics to understand why a nationwide exemption" for large quantities of marijuana cultivated for personal use could have a "substantial impact on the interstate market" for a commodity that Congress aims to "conquer." Scalia, responding to the two women's and the court minority's invocation of states' sovereignty, cited a previous court ruling that Congress may regulate even when its regulation "may pre-empt express state-law determinations contrary to the result which has commended itself to the collective wisdom of Congress." Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a former Arizona state legislator, dissented, echoing Justice Louis Brandeis' judgment that federalism is supposed to allow a single state to be a "laboratory" to "try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country." Her dissent was joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who wrote the court's opinion in a 1995 case that conservatives mistakenly hoped would signal substantial inhibitions on Congress in the name of federalism. In that case, the court overturned -- as an invalid exercise of the power to regulate commerce -- a federal law regulating the possession of guns near schools. Thomas, the justice least respectful of precedents, joined O'Connor's dissent and also dissented separately, disregarding many precedents giving almost infinite elasticity to the Commerce Clause. He said that the women's marijuana was never bought or sold, never crossed state lines and had no "demonstrable" effect on the national market for marijuana: "If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything" including "quilting bees, clothes drives and potluck suppers." Thus "the federal government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers." But that has been the case at least since 1942. In Monday's marijuana decision, which of the justices were liberal, which were conservative? Which exemplified judicial activism, which exemplified restraint? Such judgments are not as easy as many suppose. George F. Will is a columnist for The Washington Post and Newsweek. Source: Tribune Review (Pittsburgh, PA)Author: George F. WillPublished: Wednesday, June 8, 2005 Copyright: 2005 Tribune-Review Publishing Co.Contact: opinion tribweb.comWebsite: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/trib/Related Articles & Web Site:Angel Raich v. Ashcroft Newshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/raich.htm In The Grip of Reefer Madness http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread20807.shtmlFallout of Marijuana Verdicthttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread20800.shtmlCourt: Let Congress Legalize Ithttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread20788.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #9 posted by FoM on June 08, 2005 at 10:40:22 PT
Jose
Bless you're heart and I mean that too. You get a big A for effort from me.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by jose melendez on June 08, 2005 at 10:35:58 PT
sorry this took so long
I had changed the site seconds after your post, but then it took an hour to troubleshoot an error that turned out to be a misunderstanding, they reset part of the password to something that sounded identical to another word.It's all fixed now, and will not happen again.I have the utmost respect for you, Martha and am trying to make sure I do as you say.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by FoM on June 08, 2005 at 10:11:18 PT
schmeff
No you aren't out of line. I don't like to have to type reasons because I have a bad wrist and it's hard for me to do more typing then I do already.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by schmeff on June 08, 2005 at 10:09:04 PT
FoM
I didn't say it bothered me. I said I disagreed.I thought this was an open forum were we share our thoughts. Am I out of line?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by FoM on June 08, 2005 at 10:05:22 PT
schmeff
Why does it bother you about what I say to Jose?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by schmeff on June 08, 2005 at 09:59:48 PT
I disgree....
(...although I realize this can get me banned with the click of a mouse.)Jose isn't offering anything for sale in his comment. Is there a link that leads to a page where something is for sale? So what? I follow links from this site to web pages where things are for sale all the time.Most articles end with links to the source, often newpapers or magazines where, if nothing else, newspapers and magazines are for sale.What's up?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by FoM on June 08, 2005 at 09:21:42 PT
Jose
Remember this is a 100% non profit web site and you are trying to sell things on your site and that shouldn't be allowed or everyone can use CNews to sell too and could bring injury to CNews in the process.Thanks!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by jose melendez on June 08, 2005 at 09:17:30 PT
LEOs, journos: Ignoring crime?
Shall willow bark possession be forbidden on the grounds that it may adversely affect the aspirin trade?Will it now be legal and proper to seize any property where willow trees are being "manufactured"?CONSIDER: - SCOTUS is has ruled that illicit cannabis is an item in commerce. - The Sherman act forbids monopoly, construction of devices in restraint of trade or any attempts to fix prices. - The Partnership for a Drug Free America, funded primarily by pharmaceutical, industrial and drug precursor chemical manufacturers is such a device. - PDFA and ONDCP are on the record as having published and disseminated false claims in an attempt to restrain any legal cannabis trade. - In the process, both have authorized or received payments from the federal government based on those false claims. - Furthermore, the interests funding PDFA do in fact charge the government via Medicare, Medicaid and other industrial contracts for defective and dangerous products at significantly higher rates than the highest street prices known per dose for illicit cannabis. - Mahmoud ElSohly has been given a monopoly over all legal U.S. cannabis sales, based on his claim, later repeated verbatim by federal officials, that solely his firm manufactures sufficient quality and quantity cannabis to satisfy any need. - Mr. ElSohly's firm also earns a significant proportion of income by providing adulterated and substituted (urine) specimens. - Andrea Barthwell is attempting to leverage her former position with ONDCP to lobby for federal approval of a raw cannabis extract. - John Walters' latest press release falsely implies that medical marijuana is only smoked, that legal medications are more safer, and that synthetic Marinol contains the psychoactive ingredient in cannabis. - The government concedes that the message they sent by cracking down on marijuana led to the highest rates in history of eighth grade heroin use.THEREFORE, here are questions for all of you journalists and law enforcement professionals reading this:Will you blow the whistle on such obvious violations of US law, or are you simply corrupt? Feel free to call me for references and citations of the above allegations of felony crimes, along with the relevant US code that provides for severe penalties in such cases.Or, have another drink. You know, to improve your capacity for logic and reason. Not to get high or anything.Right?Jose Melendez
http://www.CCCCP.org
888 247-8183
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Trekkie on June 08, 2005 at 07:48:18 PT
...substantial impact on the interstate market
I fail to understand how and why the SCOTUS is protecting the profits of illegal activity. There IS no legitimate market, interstate or intrastate; marijuana is still illegal to possess, sell , and use - according to the feds.How can they make sense of upholding an unconstitutional law to protect a trade that they deem is still illegal - are they trying for a double-negative? ...I've gone cross-eyed..
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment