The medical marijuana case decided June 6th (GONZALES v RAICH, ET AL.) in favor of the government (6-3) was an easy slam dunk. Still, there are many problems with the majority opinion written by Justice Stevens. As Justice Thomas argues in his brilliant dissent, if growing 6 marijuana plants on your own property for your own consumption is “economic activity” that can “affect” interstate commerce, then there is absolutely nothing under the economic sun (including pot luck dinners) that cannot be regulated by the federal congress. But, clearly, that was not the intent of the framers of the Constitution. FULL ARTICLE
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/3680/the-court-federalism-and-the-free-market/
The Court, Federalism, and the Free Market
Previous post: Mortgage Pyaments to be Funded by Mortgages?
{ 6 comments }
Why don’t they just throw the constitution away, because they don’t seem to be using it.
I suppose this is the trouble with constitutional systems – there is always the tendency to make up any interpretation. The system that the constitution describes just doesn’t ensure that a limited powers interpretation is maintained.
The federal government has to be weak in a real physical sense to be kept in check.
Technology can fix this. We use Hydra, which is the strongest chess computer in history, to analyze the Constitution and all the related documentation (secondary writings from the Founders, the Federalist papers, etc), cross-referenced with all available dictionaries and examples of early applications of Constitutional findings. Then replace the SCOTUS with Hydra. Of course we’d have to imprison anyone involved with the creation and programming of Hydra, but that would be to protect its integrity from the politicians. And we would have to tie into Hydra our missile system, to threaten to level DC (with a special warning given to Ron Paul to evacuate early) if its findings were not acted on.
I know that there are all sorts of sci-fi scare scenarios that would claim this would lead to unfortunate and grave consequences…but really, could we do worse?
An excellent essay on this very topic: The Myth of the Rule of Law
Amendment 28 to the Constitution: delete the “general Welfare” and “interstate commerce” clauses.
Problem solved.
Since marijuana is illegal, wouldn’t that make it’s market illegitimate? The feds govern it in no other way than saying you can’t buy/sell/possess/manufacture….they don’t tax it or anything.
So how can they justify applying the instertate commerce clause to it?
Cornelius – I’ve read that article before, and found it to be very instructive. I should probably read it again anyway.
I believe that, much as Orwell suggested, it is the public’s ability to engage in this type of doublethink, to be aware that the law is inherently political in character and yet believe it to be an objective embodiment of justice, that accounts for the amazing degree to which the federal government is able to exert its control over a supposedly free people.
I tend to think of Law more like Michael van Notten did – Laws of human interaction that are like physical laws and must be discovered. Anything else is mere legislation, which is totally arbitrary. Legislation marks out political law – it’s a good way of distinguishing it.
Comments on this entry are closed.