What ever Happened to States Rights???

[spanone]

The Supreme Court just ruled that the Feds could prosecute medical marijuana users in states such as California where the PEOPLE have voted to allow it. This is the same Supreme Court that shut down the recount in Florida that allowed the current dictator to have his rule. Where does it end folks?


http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/06/scotus.medical.marijuana.ap/index.html

~snip~ WASHINGTON (AP) -- Federal authorities may prosecute sick people who smoke pot on doctors' orders, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, concluding that state medical marijuana laws don't protect users from a federal ban on the drug. ~snip~

[CottonBear]

1. We only have states rights when it benefits the BFEE.

:(

[underpants]

5. "States rights" is SO passe

that was back before they had complete control of the government and tried to change the rules to even get more.

[Pacifist Patriot]

2. When U.S.A. stands for

Unilaterally Subordinated Autocracy.

[Warpy]

3. States only have the right to oppress their citizens.

States don't have the right to enact legislation that benefits real human beings.

[expatriot]

4. freepers only support states' rights when it suports their bigotry and

rapture-minded puritanical selves. If federal interventionism supports their interests more, than they turn against state rights.

[theboss]

8. Except the "liberals" gave us this decision

Justices O'Connor, Rehnquist and Thomas dissented.

[EFerrari]

13. Bingo. n/t

[mazzarro]

6. States right is only called for when the Democrats control

any brand of the Federal government! Got that?

[theboss]

7. Deal with this part: Justices O'Connor, Rehnquist and Thomas dissented

It's a strange world.

[paprog]

12. Good point.

While I don't support any conservative Bushie sycophants, to be intellectually honest you have to acknowlege that two of the most conservative and consistent "state's rights" judges did dissent on this decision while many of our progressive brethren went along with the unconstitutional stretch of the interstate commerce clause.

[Cats Against Frist]

29. People want to ignore this point

Though that pantywaist fucker Scalia should have dissented, too. Nobody wants states' rights -- both the left and the right want to consolidate power, at the top. The entire right wing's "activist judges" cry has nothing to do wtih the judiciary or states' rights or more freedom -- it just has to do with removing judicial review of the law, so the law can be made at the legislative level (where they have large majorities), where they can rule as totalitarians.

You might think you're real cute for pointing this out, but the right are the bigger hypocrites -- because they've been whining for states' rights, for years -- and now?

[newyawker99]

30. Hi paprog!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[SaveElmer]

9. This sucks of course, especially for those who need it...but politically

This, combined with the assault on Social Security, and especially the Schaivo fiasco will further drive western states to the Democratic Party to protect their rights.

[theboss]

10. Even though the conservatives on the court dissented?

I'm not sure how this plays out now based on the breakdown of the justices.

[SaveElmer]

15. I'm not really sure most people are going to dig that deep

How many people can actually name the justices on the supreme court, let alone know their ideology. And, the bottom line is that this decision is the result of a lawsuit brought by Ashcroft and the Bush administaration.

They are to blame!!!

[thinkingwoman]

11. possibly stupid question here...

If the court had ruled in favor of state laws trumping federal law re: medical marijuana, couldn't that have been used to allow states to outlaw abortion again, ignoring federal laws and court rulings?

[KnaveRupe]

16. I don't think so.

Amendment X

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.

Roe v. Wade was (in my legal layman's recollection) decided on the basis that anti-abortion laws violated the Right to Privacy which was found to be implicit in the constitution (although nowhere enumerated explicitly). Therefore, the Constitution protects the right to abortion from the lamakers of the states.

Conversely, by no stretch can the Constitution be wrangled to justify overriding the states' rights on this issue. Scalia, Thomas and O'Connor were dead-on right in dissenting on this thing, much as it pains me to type those words.

[thinkingwoman]

18. I'm not a lawyer

and certainly not a constitutional scholar...but these two issues, and rulings, seem to be opposite sides of the same coin to me.

[Deep13]

21. Article I, sec. 8 ...

... explains the powers of the Federal government. The court is relying on the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Abortion, contraception, freedom to marry and family privacy in general all come from a similar line of cases that can collectively be called "substantive due process" because they arise from the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The idea is that regulations that effect issues of procreation, family and marriage are so intriniscally invasive and have such a personal and lasting effect that such regulations can never be imposed without violating due process of law. This is different than equal protection discrimination based on race, gender, religion or the excercise of fundamental rights (those listed in Amendments 1-8). In short, neither this decision nor abortion really has anything to do with privacy as it is commonly understood.

I believe Scaliathomas dissented to bolster his opposition to Roe/Casey when the issue is invariably raised again.

The concern among more liberal members of the Court, apart from plain statutory interpretation, is that the regulatory power of the Feds for safety, labor and environmental protection might be eroded in the face of local special interests. If you are skeptical of cannibis prohibition, then this ruling seems oppressive. If you view medical marijuana as the 21st century equivilent of snake-oil elixers, then this ruling is a reassuring ruling for consumer protection.

[KnaveRupe]

22. Deep13...

...thanks for the constitutional primer. Like most non-lawyers (or, for that matter, like most non-constitutional-law-specializing lawyers) my knowledge of the nuts-n-bolts intricacies of the Constitution is shamefully lacking.

That being said, I don't see the propriety of the Supreme court overruling State Laws when said Laws do not infringe on the rights of other citizens. I know that I have a Pollyanna-ish view of the Constitution, but I tend to think that we, as a nation, should always err towards freedom. If the citizens of Oregon, or California have spoken, and if the issue doesn't directly or indirectly infringe on the rights of others (in the way that, say, a ban on gay marriage or abortion would), then I would think the Amendment X "should" tell the feds to stay the hell out.

But I admitted up front that I had no idea what the hell I was talking about.

:shrug:

[Deep13]

23. That's a reasonable reading of Amend. X, ...

... but the S.Ct. has always deferred to the Feds. The results of judicial review should not be seen as the only reasonable interpretation of the Constitution. The court has screwed up before.

[thinkingwoman]

27. Scaliathomas!

They really are like siamese twins that share what passes for a brain aren't they?!?

[paprog]

17. RE: "possibly stupid question here..."

If the court had ruled in favor of state laws trumping federal law re: medical marijuana, couldn't that have been used to allow states to outlaw abortion again, ignoring federal laws and court rulings?


Probably not. One issue deals with the Interstate Commerce clause of the constitution. The other deals with the right to privacy that has been found by the Supreme Court to be a right, although it was never enumerated in the Constitution. As a matter of fact the constitution does not enumerate all the rights of the people.

I usually point out this when the freepers start in on the Right to Privacy not being in the constitution.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

And then this.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Sorry for the slightly off-topic response to the thread. Just trying to explain why this isn't really related to any abortion issues.

[thinkingwoman]

26. thanks!

Thanks for detailed response...I think I understand more now.

In fact, I think I'm more ticked off about the ruling then because how can pot you grow at home to smoke to relieve your own suffering have anything to do with interstate commerce?

[firefox]

14. Federal Supreme Court expands federal power

The federal government is nothing like what Jefferson and the framers intended. It has long exceeded the authority the Constitution sought to limit. This was the decision that I expected as federal hegemony is required for fascist power. When the federal government announced you cannot sue your federal bank in state court after hundreds of years of precedent, it was all over.

The drug war is critical to the powers that have built and hijacked the most destructive military capability the world has ever seen and federal hegemony is required to maintain that drug war. State experimentation is a lost ideal and the federal government now sees itself as an unlimited power that makes what rights the states really do have irrelevant. We are not united states. We are now geographical pieces of land completely under hegemonic fascist control.

[firefox]

24. Judge Thomas wrote in dissent

"By holding that Congress may regulate activity that is neither interstate nor commerce under the Interstate Commerce Clause, the Court abandons any attempt to enforce the Constitution’s limits on federal power. The majority supports this conclusion by invoking, without explanation, the Necessary and Proper Clause. Regulating respondents’ conduct, however, is not “necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” Congress’ restrictions on the interstate drug trade. Art. I, §8, cl. 18. Thus, neither the Commerce Clause nor the Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress the power to regulate respondents’ conduct."

[Deep13]

19. They died at Appomatox.

The feeling among most legal scholars is that anything that touches the economy is within the regulatory power of Congress. Only matters that directly affect state sovereignty are off limits under the 10th Amendment. In other words, Congress cannot order a state to change its capital, though just about anything short of that is okay. I know one decision stated that Federal labor laws did not apply to state safety forces.

[lies and propaganda]

20. Remebering the day when BushCo

was asked outright about gay marriage years ago, and he said it was totally cool just as long as the state was down.
So we completely have states rights, what are you talking about? He said we did.........:sarcasm:

[truebrit71]

25. They only apply when they favour the GOP...

...

[Arbustosux]

28. Thats a snazzy campaign motto...

but thats all the Bush admin thinks it is