![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
symbioidljRecently, I believe I posted about the ruling of the Supreme Court as regards medical marijuana that occurred on 6/6/05.
I certainly think from a purely constitutional perspective that the ruling was completely wrong. I agree with the conservatives on this one (they were actually being traditional conservatives)... In fact, I appreciate O'Connor's emphasis on the concept of experimentation. I've thought this for some time. States should be allowed to have very different dynamics internally. But now we have an overarching federal scheme that essentially makes states very, very similar.
Now, my point in this post is to "reverse-engineer" the issue... The conservative case is that Congress has no authority to regulate intrastate medical marijuana, due to the fact that there is no interstate commerce involved. And especially in this case, where the patient(s?) was/were growing it their selves, without going through any distribution channel... There is fucking no commerce involved at all.
So, I thought about what it would mean if the court HAD voted the conservative way, and that Congress has no right to ban intrastate growing and consumption of marijuana. They don't say, of course, that the States don't have the right. The individual states could still ban it in whatever way they see fit (so long as they don't infringe upon constitutional rights)... Now, though, if this were the ruling, the federal court would in effect say that with regards to federal law, there is no legal way for them to prevent you from growing marijuana yourself and using it. Wrap that around your head... If the strict constitutionalists would have been the majority, you would have every right as a citizen of the United States, to grow your own weed. That doesn't mean you necessarily have that right at the state level, but there wouldn't be a damn thing the government could do to stop you if your State DID allow you to grow it and smoke it.
This is just one example of the reason I'm for a limited federalism. By this I mean a confederation of states, with limited national unity, to serve for common purposes, but not much else. I don't like the way it's called the "Federal Government", because to me, it's more of a "national government". In theory it's a federation of loosely regulated states, but in actuality, it's not the case.
bah. anyways.
I certainly think from a purely constitutional perspective that the ruling was completely wrong. I agree with the conservatives on this one (they were actually being traditional conservatives)... In fact, I appreciate O'Connor's emphasis on the concept of experimentation. I've thought this for some time. States should be allowed to have very different dynamics internally. But now we have an overarching federal scheme that essentially makes states very, very similar.
Now, my point in this post is to "reverse-engineer" the issue... The conservative case is that Congress has no authority to regulate intrastate medical marijuana, due to the fact that there is no interstate commerce involved. And especially in this case, where the patient(s?) was/were growing it their selves, without going through any distribution channel... There is fucking no commerce involved at all.
So, I thought about what it would mean if the court HAD voted the conservative way, and that Congress has no right to ban intrastate growing and consumption of marijuana. They don't say, of course, that the States don't have the right. The individual states could still ban it in whatever way they see fit (so long as they don't infringe upon constitutional rights)... Now, though, if this were the ruling, the federal court would in effect say that with regards to federal law, there is no legal way for them to prevent you from growing marijuana yourself and using it. Wrap that around your head... If the strict constitutionalists would have been the majority, you would have every right as a citizen of the United States, to grow your own weed. That doesn't mean you necessarily have that right at the state level, but there wouldn't be a damn thing the government could do to stop you if your State DID allow you to grow it and smoke it.
This is just one example of the reason I'm for a limited federalism. By this I mean a confederation of states, with limited national unity, to serve for common purposes, but not much else. I don't like the way it's called the "Federal Government", because to me, it's more of a "national government". In theory it's a federation of loosely regulated states, but in actuality, it's not the case.
bah. anyways.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-06-07 10:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-07 02:36 pm (UTC)As far as constitutionality goes, I'd argue that it interferes with church/state separation, and thus unconstitutional. (by that I mean that teaching ID is unconstitutional, and the federal government, if they so desire, has a right to hold such a case...)
However, as far as my own opinions/idealism... Let me have a state where ppl can smoke some weed, maybe take some other entheogens, and a right to forge their destinies in a liberal way, and you can stay the fuck in S. Carolina or Georgia or Mississippi or Alabama or wherever... (not you, of course) and have your jesusland. Just keep that shit away from me.
Reminds me of a Mr. Show sketch, where they're going to separate America... New New Delhi, Homorabia, etc... All nice and balkanized.
It's tricky, I know.
OK, so I weaseled out of your question without giving an honest answer, but that's the best I can do.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-07 03:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-07 04:27 pm (UTC)Because, what I'm discussing are two different cases, one is my reading of the constitution in a case where Freedom of Religion is at issue. The other is a case where I'm discussing my ideal. My constitutional reading says that the Federal Government has a right to intervene in a case such as this, because it violates (as arachnophiliac said below) the Establishment clause, as I.D. effectively establishes a religious teaching that is to be taught in school. This goes against the constitution.
However, my personal view, is fuck 'em... Let 'em have their I.D. in their state. I should be allowed to smoke weed in mine. My state will work with their state on preventing cross border infractions. It's not different than it is now, except...
(and this is where the majority opinion comes in):
Because we are reducing demand from interstate traffic of narcotics, by allowing individuals in our state to grow their own, it follows that you will feel less pressured to push your wares onto our people. We will regulate ourselves thank you very much. But, no, no no...
By reducing demands on interstate transport of an illicit narcotic, you are therefore engaged in altering the national market overall, and the feds have a right to come in and "correct" the problem... Even if an individual has participated in no actual interstate commerce, they are still guilty according to this specious argument.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-07 04:31 pm (UTC)The whole premise of the right for the Federal government to regulate is based upon the argument that drugs overwhelmingly are interstate commerce, and thus have a right to be regulated.
This is putting that question, in context of individuals who do not participate in a national market, to the test. I believe that the constitution doesn't give the Fed gov the right to legislate such an internal economic matter.