Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (515)	6/8/2005 12:20:10 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541851

I was glad to see that the Post recognized what Raich was about, even if it wasn't sympathetic to the federalist pov. To treat this as a medical marijuana issue is to trivialize it, methinks.

To: Dale Baker who wrote (515)	6/8/2005 8:26:16 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541851

If the federal law is constitutional the decision was correct, even if the result isn't good. The courts are supposed to interpret the law not decide what they think is a good result. OTOH I don't see where the constitution allows the Feds to regulate drugs that are produced and consumed in the same state. But the court's recent reconsideration of the commerce clause carried dangers, too. Limit the legislature too much and Congress lacks the power to run a modern country whose national policy is necessarily more ambitious than it was in the 18th century. I would agree that congress is more ambitious than it was in the 18th century. I would disagree about the "necessarily" part. The plaintiffs in Raich , patients who regard pot as essential medication for their conditions, contended that because their use of the drug is noncommercial and within a single state that tolerates medical marijuana, the federal government lacked the power to stop them. This may seem like an attractive principle, but consider its implications. Can Congress protect an endangered species that exists only in a single state and may be wiped out by some noncommercial activity? Can it force an employer who operates only locally to accommodate the disabled? I find the idea of the rule of law, and constitutionally limited government to be more important than the snail darter or national level of mandated access for the disabled. If those issues are important they can be passed by state legislatures. I see no reason to think congress will be wiser than the states. If they are of vital long term national importance the constitution can be amended. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the court, emphasized the critical principle that if Congress enacts a regulation aimed at "the interstate market in a fungible commodity" -- in this case drugs -- "[t]hat the regulation ensnares some purely intrastate activity is of no moment." The regulation doesn't just happen to effect in state commerce while being clearly aimed at inter-state commerce. It directly forbids commerce in a certain product of any kind in state or out. There is no reasonable way to say that this is covered by the federal governments constitutionally granted power to regulate interstate commerce. Justice Antonin Scalia reached the same conclusion for slightly different reasons. Do you know what they where? Tim