The Supreme Court's opinion on medical marijuana in Gonzales v. Raich
FindLaw for Legal Professionals - Case Law, Federal and State Resources, Forms, and Code
Notable quotes from the Supreme Court decision handed down today regarding Gonzales v. Raich, in which a 6-3 decision held that, “Congress' Commerce Clause authority includes the power to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana in compliance with California law.” In other words, the Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Government has the right to overturn state laws allowing the medicinal use of marijuana. My commentary is interspersed with the quotes.
Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court...
But perhaps even more important than these legal avenues is the democratic process, in which the voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress.
This already happened on the state level! The voters of California and nine other states decided democratically to permit the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Once again, you are impeding the democratic process.
Justice Scalia, concurring in the judgment...
As the Court explains, marijuana that is grown at home and possessed for personal use is never more than an instant from the interstate market--and this is so whether or not the possession is for medicinal use or lawful use under the laws of a particular State.3 See ante, at 23-30
Every man, woman and child, and everything they own in the United States is an instant from the interstate market! Therefore, everything we have and everything we do is subject to the unlimited regulation of the federal government. We are no longer free individuals, but the property of the federal government.
Justice O'Connor, with whom The Chief Justice and Justice Thomas join as to all but Part III, dissenting.
We enforce the "outer limits" of Congress' Commerce Clause authority not for their own sake, but to protect historic spheres of state sovereignty from excessive federal encroachment and thereby to maintain the distribution of power fundamental to our federalist system of government. United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549, 557 (1995); NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U. S. 1, 37 (1937). One of federalism's chief virtues, of course, is that it promotes innovation by allowing for the possibility that "a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country." New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U. S. 262, 311 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)…
We would do well to recall how James Madison, the father of the Constitution, described our system of joint sovereignty to the people of New York: "The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite... . The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." The Federalist No. 45, pp. 292-293 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961).
Relying on Congress' abstract assertions, the Court has endorsed making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one's own home for one's own medicinal use. This overreaching stifles an express choice by some States, concerned for the lives and liberties of their people, to regulate medical marijuana differently. If I were a California citizen, I would not have voted for the medical marijuana ballot initiative; if I were a California legislator I would not have supported the Compassionate Use Act. But whatever the wisdom of California's experiment with medical marijuana, the federalism principles that have driven our Commerce Clause cases require that room for experiment be protected in this case. For these reasons I dissent.
BRAVO! Justice O’Conner presents a principled argument for federalism as protected by the US Constitution. I am particularly impressed that she personally does not agree with the medical use of marijuana, but her personal opinion does not matter. The only thing that matters, is upholding our federalist system.
Justice Thomas, dissenting.
Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has 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--and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers...
Justice Thomas hits the nail on the head. Potentially, this decision could have far reaching and devastating consequences for our system of government and our way of life.
Notable quotes from the Supreme Court decision handed down today regarding Gonzales v. Raich, in which a 6-3 decision held that, “Congress' Commerce Clause authority includes the power to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana in compliance with California law.” In other words, the Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Government has the right to overturn state laws allowing the medicinal use of marijuana. My commentary is interspersed with the quotes.
Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court...
But perhaps even more important than these legal avenues is the democratic process, in which the voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress.
This already happened on the state level! The voters of California and nine other states decided democratically to permit the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Once again, you are impeding the democratic process.
Justice Scalia, concurring in the judgment...
As the Court explains, marijuana that is grown at home and possessed for personal use is never more than an instant from the interstate market--and this is so whether or not the possession is for medicinal use or lawful use under the laws of a particular State.3 See ante, at 23-30
Every man, woman and child, and everything they own in the United States is an instant from the interstate market! Therefore, everything we have and everything we do is subject to the unlimited regulation of the federal government. We are no longer free individuals, but the property of the federal government.
Justice O'Connor, with whom The Chief Justice and Justice Thomas join as to all but Part III, dissenting.
We enforce the "outer limits" of Congress' Commerce Clause authority not for their own sake, but to protect historic spheres of state sovereignty from excessive federal encroachment and thereby to maintain the distribution of power fundamental to our federalist system of government. United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549, 557 (1995); NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U. S. 1, 37 (1937). One of federalism's chief virtues, of course, is that it promotes innovation by allowing for the possibility that "a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country." New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U. S. 262, 311 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)…
We would do well to recall how James Madison, the father of the Constitution, described our system of joint sovereignty to the people of New York: "The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite... . The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." The Federalist No. 45, pp. 292-293 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961).
Relying on Congress' abstract assertions, the Court has endorsed making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one's own home for one's own medicinal use. This overreaching stifles an express choice by some States, concerned for the lives and liberties of their people, to regulate medical marijuana differently. If I were a California citizen, I would not have voted for the medical marijuana ballot initiative; if I were a California legislator I would not have supported the Compassionate Use Act. But whatever the wisdom of California's experiment with medical marijuana, the federalism principles that have driven our Commerce Clause cases require that room for experiment be protected in this case. For these reasons I dissent.
BRAVO! Justice O’Conner presents a principled argument for federalism as protected by the US Constitution. I am particularly impressed that she personally does not agree with the medical use of marijuana, but her personal opinion does not matter. The only thing that matters, is upholding our federalist system.
Justice Thomas, dissenting.
Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has 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--and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers...
Justice Thomas hits the nail on the head. Potentially, this decision could have far reaching and devastating consequences for our system of government and our way of life.
Grace, Love & Peace August Ecklund at 10:19 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home