So the Supreme Court has ruled that federal drug laws trump state exemptions for medicinal use. I’m not so sure I see homegrown pot as really falling under “interstate commerce”… anyone have thoughts?A federal appeals court concluded use of medical marijuana was non-commercial, and therefore not subject to congressional oversight of “economic enterprise.”
But lawyers for the U.S. Justice Department argued to the Supreme Court that homegrown marijuana represented interstate commerce, because the garden patch weed would affect “overall production” of the weed, much of it imported across American borders by well-financed, often violent drug gangs.
Another completely off the wall ruling by the SC. But hey, who am I to question the supremacy of the courts? I might get accused of making death threats to judges.
The Interstate Commerce clause has long been a pretext for federal abuse, interference, and intrusion. This ruling is just the latest in a long line. The government has abused the clause to claim just about any power it wants.
It is pretty egregious, though. Not only is it a stretch to claim that raising pot for personal use affects interstate commerce, it’s a stretch to call the illegal drug trade interstate commerce subject to Congressional regulation.
Not only is it a stretch to claim that raising pot for personal use affects interstate commerce, it’s a stretch to call the illegal drug trade interstate commerce subject to Congressional regulation.
Yeah, exactly. I’m not a hardcore state’s rights person, but the logic seems a little off here.
I think the outcome of this case was a no-brainer. The Supreme Court has a long history of stretching the definition of “interstate commerce” (Lopez notwithstanding), and I think a decision the other way could have had unintended consequences in the realm of criminal drug enforcement. As a matter of public policy, I do believe that if as a society we want to create an medical exception to the marijuana laws, it is best done through the legislature and not the courts.
Those exceptions were carved out by the states, often times by referendum. This is gross over extension by the Supreme Court.
The SC backed off these twisted interstate commerce rulings a few years ago when they struck down a federal law establishing no gun zones around schools. Fine policy, but if you want it then go see your friendly state legislatures. Now they do a 180 with this ruling.
They probably cited that decision from decades ago in which they ruled that wheat or whatever grown and consumed on a family farm none the less affected interstate commerce by messing with the supply and demand for the product. Give me a break.
Of course, I will probably be accused of threatening judges. We need some serious shakeups of our judicial system. Where do they get off overruling state referendums?
Medical marijuana would drop the price, on California’s number 1 cash crop . Better keep the profits up, its all about the economy. Arnold said “ I want za economy to grow in kalifornia.”
Lopez was the gun case that I mentioned and an aberration. Federal law always preempts state law so long as Congress has the power under the Constitution to regulate the conduct. The Constitution gives the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce. The Supreme Court has defined for Congress what constitutes “interstate commerce”, and Congress – in making factual findings of a nexus to interstate commerce – exercised its power under that clause (keeping in mind, of course, that the Supreme Court has given them wide latitude in this area). The states acted without authority when they attempted to permit conduct that was lawfully prohibited by federal law. It’s called preemption and one only needs to recall what some southern states did during the civil rights era to understand the reason why federal laws reign supreme over conflicting state laws (edit: the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause also makes it so).
The irony of your argument, however, is that my position is in line with traditional judicial conservatism. In order for the Supreme Court to have decided in this case that there lacked the necessary nexus to interstate commerce would have required them to substitute their judgment for that of Congress. Conservatives have been decrying that type of judicial activism for years. So, in answer to your question, “where do they get off overruling state referendums?”, they didn’t, Congress did. If Congress, in its wisdom, feels that there should be an exception for medical marijuana, they are free to legislate one. But, Congress has occupied the field and the states have no power to rule otherwise.
Your points are good, especially when you get to the part about who would be engaging in judicial activism.
My point is much simpler. The Constitution is a very simple document, clearly written by the Founders who had thought the process through. Legislative and judicial history notwithstanding, the Founders didn’t consider a man who grew and consumed his own grain to be engaging in interstate commerce. Medical marijuana, grown and consumed locally is not interstate commerce. This is not complicated.
I am afraid I am not educated on the Supremacy Clause. My copy of the Constitution does have a Tenth Amendment though, that states powers not provided to the Federal Government are provided to the States and the People.
I have a real problem with the Federal Government unilaterally deciding that their laws trump state laws. I also have a real problem with the Judiciary deciding that decisions by the Judiciary trump decisions by other coequal branches of government, but maybe that is just me.
Clearly there were historical problems with civil rights laws, but the Constitution has an equal protection clause which covers most of those issues, once the damn clause was reasonably interpreted. I don’t think that the authority for the various federal Civil Rights laws comes from the interstate commerce clause, though I admit I could be mistaken.
Having said all of this, and realizing this puts me on the same page with O’Conner (shutter) I do not support medical marijuana laws at all. I just don’t think these are the call of the judiciary, certainly not the Federal judiciary.
“the Founders didn’t consider a man who grew and consumed his own grain to be engaging in interstate commerce”
Medicinal marijuana isn’t a person’s own “grain.” On top of that, the States as they currently exist and operate wouldn’t even be recognizable to the Founders. Way more people, way more interstate travel and commerce, way more money crossing borders, etc. The SC didn’t substitute it’s judgement for any co-equal branch in this case. It upheld Congress’ law over State laws and the States simply are not co-equal with the federal government.
I am afraid I am not educated on the Supremacy Clause. My copy of the Constitution does have a Tenth Amendment though, that states powers not provided to the Federal Government are provided to the States and the People.
that statement seems to imply that the supremacy clause was judicially created when that is not the case whatsoever. it’s explicitly mentioned in the constitution:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”
“Not quite, but it’s not that far off. You really think a person growing their own pot in the their backyard constitutes interstate commerce?”
It’s pretty far off of a farmer in the late 1700’s growing his own grain to turn into bread so his kids could eat. Regardless, I don’t know if it constitutes interstate commerce or not, but I don’t decide that, Congress does. If there’s an issue here it’s with how Congress has defined that term, not with how the Supreme Court ruled in this case. My point is that this is not a case of the judiciary overstepping it’s bounds and over-ruling a co-equal branch like so many people have been complaining about recently.
I guess I see the reason for my misunderstanding now. I was under the impression that words had meaning. So my limited understanding was that interstate commerce had something to do with commerce between two states. My bad.
As the people here explain it to me, apparently growing tomatoes in my back yard and eating them in my salad actually qualifies as international commerce.
I don’t grow tomatoes any more, but I do have a couple of lemon trees. I now realize that I am a player in the international citrus market. Very cool.
Read the Court’s opinion. It explains why it is well established that certain intrastate conduct can be regulated under the Commerce Clause. Your understanding is indeed limited.
I do not dispute that it is well established. My dispute is whether it is correct.
Your explanation says it all. Intrastate conduct can be regulated pursuant to the Interstate Commerce Clause.
Does anyone else have a problem with that reasoning?
Apparently modern jurisprudence has no problem with it since it requires, for example, discrimination based upon race based upon laws outlawing discrimination based on race.
You are right. My understanding of such things is limited.
"As the people here explain it to me, apparently growing tomatoes in my back yard and eating them in my salad actually qualifies as international commerce. "
That would be correct if you inserted the word “interstate” instead of “international” and were growing and eating enough tomatoes to have an effect on the interstate trade of tomatoes. Unless you have a garden the size of RI, I think your salads are safe. No need for over-dramatics.
I am confused. If I grow a small amount of marijuana or corn for my own personal consumption, I am subject to federal regulation because I am affecting the interstate commerce market. If I am affecting interstate commerce, surely I am affecting international commerce by the exact same reasoning.
Now you tell me that my two lemon trees don’t make a player in the international citrus market. This is very discouraging. I was getting very impressed with myself for a while, but apparently I am again uninformed.
Is this because I am growing citrus rather than marijuana or corn? Do I need to apply to the feds for a permit for the trees?