[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.5743

File: 1592545356205.png (58.3 KB, 693x571, 693:571, 118-1188390_my-little-pony….png) ImgOps Google

Does the power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" include the power to completely prohibit non-commercial growth and possession of marijuana for personal consumption?  Was Gonzales v. Raich (2005) wrongly decided?

 No.5750

>>5743
>include the power
I mean if you follow the words in a kind of literal or reasonable sense, no.  But that's seldom welcomed and respectful.

I think the US federal government considers this clause as allowing any desired regulation.  And marijuana is one of the most heinous narcotics out there, so it can't be allowed.  How the federal government will render subordinate states (and doctors and experts for that matter) respectful of their views, I don't know.  It's a continuing story, I guess.

 No.5751

File: 1592572308567.gif (20.78 KB, 680x723, 680:723, marijuana-15772151850560.gif) ImgOps Google

>>5750
>I think the US federal government considers this clause as allowing any desired regulation.
Unfortunately this is mostly true, if the legislation contains the magic words "in or affecting interstate commerce" to establish a jurisdictional hook.  The Supreme Court did strike down the  Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), but Congress was able to re-enact it by adding the magic words.

>And marijuana is one of the most heinous narcotics out there
Huh?  First of all, marijuana isn't even a narcotic at all! [1, 2, 3]  And secondly, the harm from using marijuana is on par with alcohol and tobacco.

>How the federal government will render subordinate states
The states are not subordinate to the federal government.  E.g., the states cannot be compelled to enforce federal statutes [4].  Rather, the federal government and the states each have their own powers, in accordance with the 10th Amendment.

>How the federal government will render ... states ... respectful of their views
The opposite is happening.  In fact, Congress has prohibited any federal funding from being spent on enforcing federal marijuana law against individuals who use medical marijuana in compliance with state law.

[1] https://www.dictionary.com/browse/narcotic

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcotic#United_States

[3] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2000-title21-vol9/xml/CFR-2000-title21-vol9-sec1300-01.xml

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Commandeering

 No.5752

>>5751
>marijuana isn't even a narcotic
I heard a police officer refer to marijuana as a narcotic.  I see, perhaps that is not the view of most, even this DEA document places it in its own category (https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/drug_of_abuse.pdf).  So I am corrected.

>the harm from using marijuana is on par with alcohol and tobacco

Not to the federal government, I don't think.  The CSA exempts alcohol to allow legitimate commerce, which there is none for a Schedule 1 substance.  I assume we are to understand the most dangerous substances are the most controlled.  I do understand many doctors disagree.  But I'm not a doctor nor a federal government, so I guess I can just seek to understand the points of view.

>the states cannot be compelled to enforce federal statutes
Hmm, well I guess I might ask, were states compelled to enforce federal regulation?

>The opposite is happening.
I see.  Well, I suppose it'd not be welcomed for me to suggest the federal government should change their laws about this...substance, to be more consistent with other laws.  Sometimes consistency is good, though.

 No.5758

>>5743
Not if they're being traded within a state and outside of the tribes.
If you're selling across state lines, maybe.

 No.5777

>>5758
The POTENTIAL for interstate commerce legal or otherwise has been used to justify a lot of really important federal law, so that argument's a loser.

 No.5778

File: 1593297804845.jpg (619.37 KB, 2577x3760, 2577:3760, omurice-meido.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5777
>The POTENTIAL for interstate commerce legal or otherwise has been used to justify a lot of ... federal law...
And I'd say these decisions were all wrong.  If I was on the Supreme Court, and a case came asking to overturn Gonzales v. Raich (2005), I'd probably vote to overturn it.

 No.5781

>>5778
The high court has too many stakes in the things that would come unhinged if the overapplication of the commerce clause was seriously challenged.

No one in Congress would confirm your appointment, you homewrecker.

 No.5783

File: 1593301108218.jpg (215.99 KB, 660x720, 11:12, 1473274354227.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5781
>The high court has too many stakes in the things that would come unhinged if the overapplication of the commerce clause was seriously challenged.
The Supreme Court already struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 as exceeding Congress's power under the Commerce Clause.  And Gonzales v. Raich wasn't a unanimous opinion; 3 justices dissented.  I say it's high time for the Supreme Court to get back in the business of actually enforcing the full Bill of Rights, including the 10th Amendment.  If they're too worried that chaos might result if they invalidate most of the unconstitutional federal laws, maybe they can compromise and just allow states to specifically override federal encroachments of intra-state commerce.

 No.5792

>>5783
> back in the business of actually enforcing the full Bill of Rights,

See, this shows me that you have as much to unlearn as i do.  You do, i hope, realize that the high court was never about enforcing the bill of rights?  That the people's rights at all were only an illusion, and that what we have right now is actually as close as we've ever been to the country we imagine was once actually real but has somehow been lost?

Its like slavery ending on schedule, which it didnt, example Plessy.  Many decades following the high court AT LAST following the bill of right in Brown v Bd of Education, and we still have segregated schools and effective slavery of the vast majority of our disenfranchised black population.

Im just sayin.


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]