Gonzales V. Raich Decided Today

[Groovenstein]

The Supreme Court decided today that the Controlled Substances Act as applied to a couple ladies who smoked dope they grew themselves or got for free was a constitutional excercise of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause. The decision was 6-3, with Scalia concurring in the judgment, and Thomas, Rehnquist, and O'Connor dissenting.

Here's the slip opinion:

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/06...pdf/03-1454.pdf

I'd guess that many of you are not really interested in the finer points of the Commerce Clause. And that's fine, I'm not suggesting you should be. In general terms, though, my initial impression of this ruling is that it reduces the idea of a federal governemnt of enumerated powers to not much. I may give it more thorough study at some point and will report that here.

[DavidOdden]

my initial impression of this ruling is that it reduces the idea of a federal governemnt of enumerated powers to not much.

For example, to "whatever Congress wants it to be". I'm trying to see how Lopez couldn't have been Commerce Clause on steroids, under the "even when not itself commercial" subclause. Guns are objects of commerce (just like reefer); there are various federal regulations on guns; so what more do you need to give Congress the power to prohibit posession of guns near schools (especially since they could be sold). Well, last week's Andersen high is hereby cancelled.

[Eric Mathis]

Here's an even more absurd case, Leslie Salt Co. vs. the United States:

The Army Corps insisted that because Leslie Salt's basins occasionally fill with rain water, and migratory birds from time to time take refuge in these basins, these basins are subject to federal government jurisdiction.

Never mind that these basins wouldn't exist had Leslie Salt not dug them. Never mind that the actions of Leslie Salt that stirred the ire of the Army Corps were designed to keep the basins wetter rather than drier.
http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp...der=articledate

In other words, federal intervention was justified on the basis of the interstate commerce of birds!

Edited June 6, 2005 by Eric Mathis

[Yes]

Marijuana is classified as a Schedule I substance, §812©, based on its high potential for abuse, no accepted medical use, and no accepted safety for use in medically supervised treatment, §812((1). This classification renders the manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana a criminal offense.

§§841(a)(1), 844(a). Pp. 6–11.( Congress’ power to regulate purely.....

Couldn't tobacco be considered in this same light?

What a sham this is.

[Lemuel]

The part that drove me bonkers was the rationale behind Wickard. He was told only to grow so much wheat for sale. He grew more, but the excess was for personal consumption. The government came in anyway, saying that growing wheat for himself would affect commerce anyway and he still broke the law.

They used the rationale that a specific activity can be illegal because it falls into a general category of illegal activities within which another specific action has been deemed illegal. A specific instance where the law can be wrong (SHOCK!) is no excuse for breaking it. Does this mean I'll get thrown in jail for driving myself to the hospital on a suspended driver's license? According to that idea, yep.

The logic ... excuse me, the lack of logic here is astounding.

I don't know what to do but encourage everyone to look up their state's rules on jury nullification. That's where the roll-back is going to begin: some jury is going to watch as the State tries to ruin the life of someone who's done no harm to anyone else, and they're going to say "enough of this" ...

[Groovenstein]

I don't know what to do but encourage everyone to look up their state's rules on jury nullification . . .

I recommend this thread discussing the rule of law in a somewhat free society:

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=2859

I'm not sure about this issue yet, but I'd be delighted to continue the discussion on this particular point in that thread.