I Join In Concurrence
Not that my opinion matters because I am not a Supreme Court Justice. But that does not stop me from speaking about a case that was sure to inspire a lively bit of debate today. And according to Thomas, it has. But those that are on the side of the dissenters (O’Connor, Thomas, and Rehnquist) are hyping up "States rights". The problem with that egregious belief is that States rights have absolutely nothing to do with this case.
Justice Stevens wrote in his opinion: "The Supremacy Clause unambiguously provides that if there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail." Stevens is correct in this assertion. It has always been that federal law supersedes the state’s laws, especially in instances of Interstate Commerce. The fact that marijuana is illegal in and of itself I will address later, but as a drug, it is under the control of the FDA, which has banned Schedule I drugs from even being considered for medical use.
As Thomas was quick to point out in his entry today, the American Medical Association cannot endorse the use of marijuana for medical purposes because of the high restrictions invoked by federal law. Until those restrictions are reduced, and proper studies can be carried out, the do not recommend it as an alternative, prescribed medication for any patients. In their opinion they do not have substantial proof either way; that is, whether it is truly a help or not to the patient. This has been a point of contention by many people on this issue. Those that stand in favor of such laws, and the removal of marijuana from it’s banned status by the FDA will stand up and proclaim how it helped them, or their mother, or their great-grandfather suffering from glaucoma. The problem with their argument, as the AMA has pointed out in several studies, is the use and effects are entirely arbitrary; based solely on the individual. For some it works, for others it does not. Until the pros and cons of it’s use can be proven one way or another, it falls back to the law, and the law says that it’s use or possession is illegal. (I will not even touch on the fact that the AMA is firmly against smoking it, as it is as dangerous—if not more so—as cigarettes.)
Interstate Commerce applies as marijuana is a fungible commodity, and is under the jurisdiction of Congress’ power to regulate it. Whether it is interstate or intrastate makes not a difference. The California law is so vague that it does not truly differentiate between medicinal use and recreational use. Drug use in this nation is rampant. (Friends I had in high school that would have never touched the stuff have become chronic weekend users now thet they are in college.) And even if it were enumerated within the California law the difference between recreational and medicinal use, the state cannot get around the simple fact that marijuana is still illegal under federal law.
Justice Stevens gave the people an option, and it is a simple one in it’s idea, but a far more difficult one in practice: "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." He is telling these people to talk with their elected representatives and change the law. This is important because a federal law cannot be overturned at the state level if they pass a contradicting law. If federal law mandates that we drive with clothes on, and the people of California pass a law that states they may drive nude, the federal law will take precedent. There will be no nude driving without consequences.
So the idea of the States rights argument is null and void. The States have the authority to make laws to better govern their citizens, provided it does not contradict the federal government.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."—10th Amendment, US Constitution.
Marijuana has been illegal for quite some time in this nation, and it was the federal government that enacted those laws, and it is the federal government that has the ultimate power over those laws. I disagree with much of the federal government’s intrusion into the States’ obvious purview, but that is not the case with this decision. This decision is correct in it’s overall logic.
The States did not regulate marijuana. The federal government did. As Thomas would say: "That’s their baby." He is correct. So is the Court. The State of California overstepped it’s boundaries when it made the law. So did the other eight states that have laws that are akin to the one from California. The contention made by those states is that there are some people who benefit from it’s use. And whereas the AMA agrees, in part with that logic, there is little hard evidence to back it up. And those states must remember who’s "baby" this issue is. It is Congress’. It falls to them to change the law, or amend it by adding a specific exclusion to those that use it for medicinal purposes, not to the individual states.
Further, on the issue of Interstate Commerce, marijuana, despite it’s illegality, is still a commodity that is regulated. Granted, many people believe that Congress’ authority regarding Interstate Commerce is far too intrusive (I reside in that camp) it is, nonetheless, a fact of life, and a power of the federal government.
Those that brought this suit cited two important USSC decisions: United States v. Lopez, and United States v. Morrison. Both cases focused on the Interstate Commerce Clause—for separate reasons—but the idea of ICC in those decisions hold no merit in this case. The case that Stevens relied upon for the determination of the ICC’s merit was Wickard v. Filburn. The Court determined in the Wickard case that Congress had the power to regulate intrastate commerce, as the wheat Filburn grew was beyond his allotment of acres, and that had he so desired, could have affected the prices at the time. Granted, Filburn had no intention to do so. His extra wheat was for his family alone.
Yes, the California law, in it’s entirety, states that whatever is grown by the people requiring marijuana usage for medical means may not be sold or otherwise distributed. But then the question falls to how does one enforce this? The ultimate enforcement, the Court points out, comes from Congress, as the drug is illegal under federal law.
The Bunny ;)
Not that my opinion matters because I am not a Supreme Court Justice. But that does not stop me from speaking about a case that was sure to inspire a lively bit of debate today. And according to Thomas, it has. But those that are on the side of the dissenters (O’Connor, Thomas, and Rehnquist) are hyping up "States rights". The problem with that egregious belief is that States rights have absolutely nothing to do with this case.
Justice Stevens wrote in his opinion: "The Supremacy Clause unambiguously provides that if there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail." Stevens is correct in this assertion. It has always been that federal law supersedes the state’s laws, especially in instances of Interstate Commerce. The fact that marijuana is illegal in and of itself I will address later, but as a drug, it is under the control of the FDA, which has banned Schedule I drugs from even being considered for medical use.
As Thomas was quick to point out in his entry today, the American Medical Association cannot endorse the use of marijuana for medical purposes because of the high restrictions invoked by federal law. Until those restrictions are reduced, and proper studies can be carried out, the do not recommend it as an alternative, prescribed medication for any patients. In their opinion they do not have substantial proof either way; that is, whether it is truly a help or not to the patient. This has been a point of contention by many people on this issue. Those that stand in favor of such laws, and the removal of marijuana from it’s banned status by the FDA will stand up and proclaim how it helped them, or their mother, or their great-grandfather suffering from glaucoma. The problem with their argument, as the AMA has pointed out in several studies, is the use and effects are entirely arbitrary; based solely on the individual. For some it works, for others it does not. Until the pros and cons of it’s use can be proven one way or another, it falls back to the law, and the law says that it’s use or possession is illegal. (I will not even touch on the fact that the AMA is firmly against smoking it, as it is as dangerous—if not more so—as cigarettes.)
Interstate Commerce applies as marijuana is a fungible commodity, and is under the jurisdiction of Congress’ power to regulate it. Whether it is interstate or intrastate makes not a difference. The California law is so vague that it does not truly differentiate between medicinal use and recreational use. Drug use in this nation is rampant. (Friends I had in high school that would have never touched the stuff have become chronic weekend users now thet they are in college.) And even if it were enumerated within the California law the difference between recreational and medicinal use, the state cannot get around the simple fact that marijuana is still illegal under federal law.
Justice Stevens gave the people an option, and it is a simple one in it’s idea, but a far more difficult one in practice: "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." He is telling these people to talk with their elected representatives and change the law. This is important because a federal law cannot be overturned at the state level if they pass a contradicting law. If federal law mandates that we drive with clothes on, and the people of California pass a law that states they may drive nude, the federal law will take precedent. There will be no nude driving without consequences.
So the idea of the States rights argument is null and void. The States have the authority to make laws to better govern their citizens, provided it does not contradict the federal government.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."—10th Amendment, US Constitution.
Marijuana has been illegal for quite some time in this nation, and it was the federal government that enacted those laws, and it is the federal government that has the ultimate power over those laws. I disagree with much of the federal government’s intrusion into the States’ obvious purview, but that is not the case with this decision. This decision is correct in it’s overall logic.
The States did not regulate marijuana. The federal government did. As Thomas would say: "That’s their baby." He is correct. So is the Court. The State of California overstepped it’s boundaries when it made the law. So did the other eight states that have laws that are akin to the one from California. The contention made by those states is that there are some people who benefit from it’s use. And whereas the AMA agrees, in part with that logic, there is little hard evidence to back it up. And those states must remember who’s "baby" this issue is. It is Congress’. It falls to them to change the law, or amend it by adding a specific exclusion to those that use it for medicinal purposes, not to the individual states.
Further, on the issue of Interstate Commerce, marijuana, despite it’s illegality, is still a commodity that is regulated. Granted, many people believe that Congress’ authority regarding Interstate Commerce is far too intrusive (I reside in that camp) it is, nonetheless, a fact of life, and a power of the federal government.
Those that brought this suit cited two important USSC decisions: United States v. Lopez, and United States v. Morrison. Both cases focused on the Interstate Commerce Clause—for separate reasons—but the idea of ICC in those decisions hold no merit in this case. The case that Stevens relied upon for the determination of the ICC’s merit was Wickard v. Filburn. The Court determined in the Wickard case that Congress had the power to regulate intrastate commerce, as the wheat Filburn grew was beyond his allotment of acres, and that had he so desired, could have affected the prices at the time. Granted, Filburn had no intention to do so. His extra wheat was for his family alone.
Yes, the California law, in it’s entirety, states that whatever is grown by the people requiring marijuana usage for medical means may not be sold or otherwise distributed. But then the question falls to how does one enforce this? The ultimate enforcement, the Court points out, comes from Congress, as the drug is illegal under federal law.
The Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 1:22 PM
1 Comments:
Good blog. I agree with you. The arguments in chat involved around "medical use" and was it in fact a drug that relieves pain and state rights. They missed the whole point of the decision. I posted the case isn't about the 10th amendment. I reminded them that federal law trumps state law. Rawriter
Post a Comment
<< Home