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: Lane3 who wrote (517)	6/8/2005 12:25:39 PM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541786

I had no idea that was the essence of the case until I read the Post editorial. Too bad marijuana use couldn't have a landmark case ruling on its own merits.

To: Lane3 who wrote (517)	6/8/2005 12:57:29 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541786

Often people don't have a clear idea of the broad issue that actually underlies the case the court is considering. I had figured out that this was about State and Fed powers but had no understanding of the interstate commerce aspect. This article was very helpful. When a smaller issue (like medical marijuana) gets swallowed by an important larger one though, isn't there some way around it? Some way to separate it and make some exceptions that won't interfere with the large one? Do you remember some survey a few years ago that said the USSC decisions should reflect the will of the people? Now that was scary.