In a 6-3 ruling today, The Supreme Fucktards ruled that the Federal Government has the ability to regulate an entirely intrastate transaction, namely medical marijuana.
Here's the facts, laid out very simply:
- The patients are California citizens
- The doctors are California doctors
- The marijuana is grown in California
- The marijuana is distributed in California
- The marijuana may never leave California
- Nowhere in the Constitution is the Federal Government granted the right to regulate intrastate commerce
- Amendment X to the United States Constitution says, and I quote, "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."
- Thus, the right to regulate intrastate commerce is reserved specifically to the States. In this case, that is California.
- California voters passed, with an overwhelming majority, a law which permitted this intrastate commerce.
- The Supreme Court said, nope, even though none of us have M.D.s, we're going to override lots of smart people who do have medical licenses, and we're going to violate the Constitution to do it, and say that we think marijuana's bad, and you can't use it.
You want to know what makes people want to get up on top of buildings with high powered rifles? This is the sort of thing that does that. And, to be clear, I'm not saying that people should or that I'm going to do that, or any of that crap (so please, let's not send Federal agents to my door, I'm not at all threatening anyone). I'm simply saying that the next time the Secret Service arrests some nutjob for running around on the White House lawn with a gun, or threatening a Justice, or any of those other certifiably whack-job things, and all these people want to know "what could possibly drive that guy to think the system has been perverted and corrupted?" that this is the sort of thing they can very easily point to and ask simply, "If the Supreme Court is going to piss all over the Constitution, then who exactly is going to defend the people against a tyrannical Federal government?
I think the Reason headline sums it up: http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2005/06/supremes_to_pot.shtml
Two years ago, I proposed "Proposition THC" (at http://blog.megacity.org/archives/001129.php )
"The state of _______ shall authorize law enforcement or civilians to use deadly force against the Federal Government in the defense of rights granted to them by the state of _______. The arrest or detention of a citizen of ________ who is exercising his state-granted right by the Federal government shall be deemed to be kidnapping, and all parties will be subject to arrest and prosecution therefore."
I can seriously get behind this now. I'm not at all saying that we shoot start illegally shooting federal drug agents. I'm saying we should make it legal for the State, and its citizenry, to defend itself... or, in the words of our founding fathers...
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
2 conservative justices (Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas) joined a moderate Justice O'Connor) to oppose this ruling, because it limited states rights. The majority said "Our cases have taught us that there are some unscrupulous physicians who overprescribe when it is sufficiently profitable to do so." So the main reason to not allow this law is they think people will break it! Why not throw out laws governing seat belts, speeding, underage drinking... He11 throw all laws out.
while i agree with your rant, i read something earlier, which i can't find right now, that says essentially SCOTUS did the right thing according to the law.
evidently there's something in some drug act/law that superceedsthe interstate commerce act. something like drugs fall under interstate commerce even if it's not actually interstate commerce.
when i find it, i'll post it.
that all being said, the whole idea that people who are incredibly sick and/or near death are not allowed, legally, to ease their suffering, is barbaric. maybe a someone should sue the DEA for unintenionally violating these people's Eighth Amendment rights -- cruel and unusual punishment.
if you're in a situ like this, the federal government should be asking you what type of narco would you like and how much -- we're supposed HELP people in this unfortunate situ, not turn them into felons.
i'll step off my soapbox now.
Jay,
I disagree. You can't just let the courts define "anything they want" as interstate commerce that isn't. If you accept that sort of logic, then the Federal government has precedent to say things like "What you do in your bedroom alone at night is defined as interstate commerce," or "what a woman does with her body is defined as interstate commerce." The abuse potential of letting the government define non-interstate-commerce things as interstate-commerce is huge, and the results of that show in this recent decision.
Derek, you don't seem to understand that when a court renders a decision, "good" vs "evil", "right" vs. "wrong", etc., have no part in the decision. Put simply, it's not the court's job to decide right from wrong. A court's job is to decide legal from illegal, as defined soley by the laws already made (with things explicit in the constitution trumping anything else). That so few high court decisions are unanimous is testiment to the vaguenesses of laws -- interpretations can change over time.
Are you sure that there's nothing in the constitution that would fall under the "nor prohibited by it to the States" clause?
(Note that I'm not making any statement for or against this particular decision; I'm making a statement about how your post is off the mark WRT the court's job. Perhaps you should be ranting at the court, but it's not clear from your post that you shouldn't really be ranting at Congress. Or, better yet, realizing that not blowing a gasket with every perceived injustice you see would be benefficial to your mental and physical health)
States are prohibited from doing things like negotiating treaties and stuff, that doesn't apply here.
I'm not ranting at Congress. I *AM* ranting at the court, as you suggest. The word "congress" doesn't even appear in my post, but "court" appears in the title and they are referred to as the "Supreme Fucktards". What part of that was unclear?
It's not a "perceived injustice", it is a *real* injustice. The Supreme Court has said "fuck the constitution, we don't like pot, so we're going to urinate on the Tenth Amendment".
Jeffery, SCOTUS is not bound by anything more than the Constituion and (if they choose) it's previous rulings on related matters. That Congress passes a law means nothing, indeed part of the Courts reason for existing it to strike down those laws that overstep Constitutional limitations on Federal power.
Derek is spot on here. There is no legal basis for this decision, and it tears at the very fabric of our Republic. You cannot read the letter of the Constitution as it relates to Congressional authority and conclude that this is acceptable. If you think you can, then please try.
Jeffrey, a Derek that doesn't blow gaskets from time to time is not a Derek I want to read.
I think I could make a most excellent short film, by sitting him down, ordering a few drams of fine single malt, and throwing topics at him.