Author Topic: Clarence Thomas and Sandra Day O'Connor Agree (Read 791 times)

rpm · « **Reply #30 on:** June 06, 2005, 10:55:28 PM »

I happen to disagree with the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 and the inclusion of marijuana. It's classification in that Act is incorrect, IMHO.

It is neither a lethal or dangerous substance. It should be classified in the catagory below 3.2% beer.

Again, this is just my opinion.

Marijuana came very close to being decriminalised in the late 70's until a cocaine scandal in the Carter Administration. Politics forced the subject to be dropped.

Toad · « **Reply #31 on:** June 06, 2005, 11:04:15 PM »

Well, that's not the basis of the majority opinion and it really isn't a factor in this ruling.

The basis of the majority opinion is "interstate commerce" and Congress' authority to regulate it.

Constitutionally, do you feel that Congressional regulation of Interstate Commerce would extend to stopping California from allowing medical patients to grow their own MJ?

That is my question to you.

rpm · « **Reply #32 on:** June 06, 2005, 11:10:57 PM »

I got ya.

No, I don't think it was interstate commerce. It should not apply in this instance unless the ladies were transporting or shipping it across state lines. It was purely intrastate.

The ONLY way federal law could be applied in this case was taxation, but they did not procecute for that.

Toad · « **Reply #33 on:** June 06, 2005, 11:29:11 PM »

OK, now to wrap up.

You disagree with the decision basing your disagreement on "State's Rights". You do not think it was interstate commerce. You do not think Article 1, Section 8 Clause 3 should apply in this instance.

Stevens said the power of Congress to regulate commerce among the states included the authority to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana in compliance with California law.

In a dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said that states should be allowed to set their own rules.

Which of the two would you say is the Judge who stretched the interpretation of the Constitution?

Which of the two would you say is the Judge who used the strict interpretation of the Constitution?

Toad · « **Reply #34 on:** June 06, 2005, 11:49:46 PM »

^

RPM?

rpm · « **Reply #35 on:** June 06, 2005, 11:53:49 PM »

Jeebus, I did'nt realise this was a civics test.

I agree with O'Conner's opinion about state rights. I think it is constitutionally correct in this instance.

I disagree with Stevens' opinion. There was no commerce involved, as I have already said. Thus, he was reaching way out into right field, constitutionally speaking.

If a state has legalised cultivation then it's legal in that state. If they carry the product across state lines or onto federal property, it becomes a federal matter. That's the way it was in Alaska until the Fed's threatened to cut off ALL federal funding, i.e. blackmail.

rpm · « **Reply #36 on:** June 06, 2005, 11:55:11 PM »

Gimme a break Toad, I'm reading more than 1 thread.

Sandman · « **Reply #37 on:** June 07, 2005, 12:02:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by storch
roe v wade

Roe v. Wade is not a law. This just in.

Toad · « **Reply #38 on:** June 07, 2005, 12:05:45 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm
I disagree with Stevens' opinion. There was no commerce involved, as I have already said. Thus, he was reaching way out into right field, constitutionally speaking.

Now perhaps you understand what the generally accepted meaning of "acitivist judge" is.

Stevens IS reaching... and so are the other five who agreed with him.

I think most (I hope) will see that O'Connor is correct:

Quote

"The government has made no showing in fact that the possession and use of homegrown marijuana for medical purposes, in California or elsewhere, has a substantial effect on interstate commerce," she said.

It is in this vein that people say "activist" judges are "making law". They reach WAY out to stretch the Constitution to support their particular view, allowing or disallowing (making or breaking) laws of the legislative branch (in this case California's).

All they're really supposed to do is READ WHAT'S THERE. Instead, we get this incredible stretching of the Constitution.

Bad juju.

BTW, I salute you for hanging in. I sort of expected you to simply withdraw from the field like Sandy did when it became obvious where this was going.

Because this is a BAD ruling... a real stretch. I'm suprised to find the liberals on the SC supporting it. Amazed, even.

Sandman · « **Reply #39 on:** June 07, 2005, 12:09:29 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad

BTW, I salute you for hanging in. I sort of expected you to simply withdraw from the field like Sandy did when it became obvious where this was going.

Actually... I'm home late from class and I can't find anything to add to RPM's opinion. We are pretty much of like mind on this one.

Of course... I could go back through, quote and add "me too" if you feel the need to be ganged upon.

rpm · « **Reply #40 on:** June 07, 2005, 12:11:21 AM »

Here's another shocker for ya. I've already fired off 3 letters to my Congressmen/woman, for all the good it will do. Both Senators are Bush lackey's.

Toad · « **Reply #41 on:** June 07, 2005, 12:11:32 AM »

LOL... I'm "ganging" ya? All one of me?

Glad you agree that Stevens and the liberals are really reaching to try and get the Constitution to stretch to cover this. And that it's a BAD THING.

It always is, no matter which side does it.

Toad · « **Reply #42 on:** June 07, 2005, 12:13:01 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm
Here's another shocker for ya. I've already fired off 3 letters to my Congressmen/woman, for all the good it will do. Both Senators are Bush lackey's.

Then I'm sure you'll be supporting strict constructionists for replacement SC justices. Pretty much the kind of guys the Democratic Senators hate.

Right?

I'm sorry.... but I am enjoying this too much. I should stop.

Sandman · « **Reply #43 on:** June 07, 2005, 12:13:04 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
LOL... I'm "ganging" ya? All one of me?

Sorry... I had to fix the grammar. You might want to re-read it.

rpm · « **Reply #44 on:** June 07, 2005, 12:14:28 AM »

I think you need to read Sandy's post 1 more time Toad.