Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sandman on June 06, 2005, 12:49:28 PM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20050606/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_medical_marijuana_16
What the hell happened to states' rights? Oh yeah... Lincoln.
-
You can't allow patients to use marijuana for pain!!! That is a DRUG!
Nope...what they need is percocet, vallium, morphine, etc etc etc.
Hmmmmmmm.
-
I even agree it is bs
but do you think it this ruling will change anything? I think those that do now will tomorrow as well as I would do if I were in their shoes.
on the other hand, I think the abuse of the medical loophole did nothing but hurt its cause ... how many toked up a med excuse?
-
I much prefer codein over HTC...hey wait a minute?
-
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that federal government authorities may prosecute sick people who use marijuana on doctors' orders.
Why would doctors order the federal government to prosecute sick people?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Why would doctors order the federal government to prosecute sick people?
Because they make lots of money peddling the "good" drugs as the large drug companies manufacture. This "alternative" non-addictive, non side effect producing upstart nonsense is just not CRICKET old chap!
-
pot allways made things hurt worse for me... I concentrated on em too much.
lazs
-
This is funny. On just about everything else the SCOTUS has legislated from the bench on Social Issues to the states rather than tell them to lobby congress for a law change. Now the SCOTUS is telling the states in the case of this substance that they have to follow federal law and lobby Congress to change it if they don't want to violate the law.
You think it's the camel nose under the the edge of the tent syndrome? They let this one slide and every other illegal substance gets challenged? Then someone has to actually do something about the war on drugs.
-
Looking forward to hearing conservatives on this board lambast 'activist judges'.
-
Let me get this straight.....
you think each State should be allowed to decide for itself? That the Feds have no business sticking their nose in this?
Well then......... realize that O'Connor, Thomas and Rhenquist were the ONLY dissenters.
The "liberal" SC judges, John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer all voted give the FEDS the power to decide, not the States.
Kennedy and Scalia, normally "states rights" types, sided with the "liberal judges" this time. Scalia wrote a separate opinion to say he agreed with the result, though not the majority's reasoning.
Looks like your activist judges were the power behind this move to take away the powers of the State to decide "medical marijuana".
-
who here needs there presciptions filled??
-
Originally posted by Toad
Looks like your activist judges were the power behind this move to take away the powers of the State to decide "medical marijuana".
Toad you never cease to amuse me. How do they get the "activist" lable with this decision?
-
That comment is in respect to Chairboy's comment.
As for "activist" judge, the term as generally accepted means those in black robes, rather than legislators, that are making and repealing laws.
So, let's see. The States pass a law in their legislature, the Federal SC deems it unconstitutional because
"majority that the federal law, the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, was a valid exercise of federal power by the Congress "even as applied to the troubling facts of this case." "
So somewhere these judges found validity for the Feds to control marijuana prescribed by doctors despite the States themselves giving it the OK.
WRT States Rights, do you feel this is an "activist" ruling? Or "textualist"?
-
Originally posted by Toad
As for "activist" judge, the term as generally accepted means those in black robes, rather than legislators, that are making and repealing laws.
I gotta ask. What laws have the Supreme Court made?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I gotta ask. What laws have the Supreme Court made?
(Pulls up a chair) This ought to be good. :)
-
Quibbling?
'Activist" judges are considered to be those that do not strictly interpret the Constitution.
"Textualist" judges are considered to judges who make their decisions based completely on the Constitution.
Do you see any difference in the one judge who stretches interpretation to bring about change and the other who uses the strict interpretation to prevent change?
What's your definition of "activist" then? Or are none of them "activist"?
-
I would humbly suggest that both sides would say they "strictly" interpret the Constitution. One side may interpret it in a more traditional manner. But when you are "interpreting" something, right or wrong can be completely a POV (depending on the rules used for reaching an interpretation).
Not disagreeing, just making a point.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I gotta ask. What laws have the Supreme Court made?
Brown vs Topeka Board of Education decided that "Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children...A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn."
While not legislation, it certainly has been law by precedance.
-
Gawdamn liberal activist judges deciding that that the citizens of this country have equal rights and that segration is unfair. Damn them! I wonder what it was in the Constitution that could have put that idea in their heads.
-
Geeze Sandman,
You wanted an example of laws made by the courts, I gave you a famous one.
Precedant is a vitally important aspect of the practice of law. It is cited by those who interpret legislation, ie. judges. Decisions of judges like any human beings can be wrong, case in point the Supreme Court's biggest historical blunder, the Dred Scott decision, which (temporarily) strengthened slavery. One precedant based on another based on another can, by the law of unintended consequeses cause the original law to be interpreted in a far different way than intended. Depending on the justness of the law this can be good or bad.
-
do the states have to inforce federal law, and do they have the legal power to inforce federal law?
-
did any of you actually READ the article or the ruling??????
The court did not pass judgment on medical marijuana use they simply said that federal law does in fact prohibit it and that....oh hell. This isn't judicial activism or any thing else just
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing the 6-3 decision, said that Congress could change the law to allow medical use of marijuana.
The closely watched case was an appeal by the Bush administration in a case involving two seriously ill California women who use marijuana. The court said the prosecution of pot users under the federal Controlled Substances Act was constitutional.
"I'm going to have to be prepared to be arrested," said Diane Monson, one of the women involved in the case.
Stevens said the court was not passing judgment on the potential medical benefits of marijuana, and he noted "the troubling facts" in the case. Monson's backyard crop of six marijuana plants was seized by federal agents in 2002, although the California law was on Monson's side.
ustice John Paul Stevens, writing the 6-3 decision, said that Congress could change the law to allow medical use of marijuana.
now how is that in any way judicial activism. All they did was rule on wether the law ITSELF was constitutional. Wich is exactly what they are there for....RIGHT?
some of you get off your high (no pun intended) horses and petition CONGRESS to change the law if you disagree with it.
-
I see neither Sandman nor RPM desire to discuss judicial activism wrt what it means.
Let me ask this then:
Sandman or RPM, do you agree or disagree with the SC decision? Precisely would YOU have voted with the minority or the majority? Why?
(Guns, I disagree on some of that. More later.)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I gotta ask. What laws have the Supreme Court made?
roe v wade
-
Personally, I think they read the law correctly. I wish they would change the federal law, but it was applied as written. There was no activism here, at all.
-
U.S. Constitution: Eighteenth Amendment
Eighteenth Amendment - Prohibition of Intoxicating Liquors
Amendment Text | Annotations
Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
Annotations
Validity of Adoption
Cases relating to this question are presented and discussed under Article V.
Enforcement
Cases produced by enforcement and arising under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments are considered in the discussion appearing under the those Amendments.
Repeal
This Amendment was repealed by the Twenty-first Amendment, and titles I and II of the National Prohibition Act 1 were subsequently specifically repealed by the act of August 27, 1935, 2 federal prohibition laws effective in various Districts and Territories were repealed as follows: District of Columbia--April 5, 1933, and January 24, 1934; 3 Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands--March 2, 1934; 4 Hawaii--March 26, 1934; 5 and Panama Canal Zone--June 19, 1934. 6
Taking judicial notice of the fact that ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment was consummated on December 5, 1933, the Supreme Court held that the National Prohibition Act, insofar as it rested upon a grant of authority to Congress by the Eighteenth Amendment, thereupon become inoperative, with the result that prosecutions for violations of the National Prohibition Act, including proceedings on appeal, pending on, or begun after, the date of repeal, had to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Only final judgments of conviction rendered while the National Prohibition Act was in force remained unaffected. 7 Likewise a heavy ''special excise tax,'' insofar as it could be construed as part of the machinery for enforcing the Eighteenth Amendment, was deemed to have become inapplicable automatically upon the latter's repeal. 8 However, liability on a bond conditioned upon the return on the day of trial of a vessel seized for illegal transportation of liquor was held not to have been extinguished by repeal when the facts disclosed that the trial took place in 1931 and had resulted in conviction of the crew. The liability became complete upon occurrence of the breach of the express contractual condition and a civil action for recovery was viewed as unaffected by the loss of penal sanctions. 9
Footnotes
[Footnote 1] Ch. 85, 41 Stat. 305.
[Footnote 2] Ch. 740, 49 Stat. 872.
[Footnote 3] Ch. 19, 48 Stat. 25; ch. 4, 48 Stat. 319.
[Footnote 4] Ch. 37, 48 Stat. 361.
[Footnote 5] Ch. 88, 48 Stat. 467.
[Footnote 6] Ch. 657, 48 Stat. 1116.
[Footnote 7] United States v. Chambers, 291 U.S. 217, 222 -26 (1934). See also Ellerbee v. Aderhold, 5 F. Supp. 1022 (N.D. Ga. 1934); United States ex rel. Randall v. United States Marshal for Eastern Dist. of New York, 143 F.2d 830 (2d Cir. 1944). The Twenty-first Amendment containing ''no saving clause as to prosecutions for offenses therefore committed,'' these holdings were rendered unavoidable by virtue of the well-established principle that after ''the expiration or repeal of a law, no penalty can be enforced, nor punishment inflicted, for violations of the law committed while it was in force. . . .'' The General Pinkney, 9 U.S. (5 Cr.) 281, 283 (1809), quoted in United States v. Chambers, supra, 291 U.S. at 223 .
[Footnote 8] United States v. Constantine, 296 U.S. 287 (1935). The Court also took the position that even if the statute embodying this ''tax'' had not been ''adopted to penalize violations of the Amendment,'' but merely to obtain a penalty for violations of State liquor laws, ''it ceased to be enforceable at the date of repeal,'' for with the lapse of the unusual enforcement powers contained in the Eighteenth Amendment, Congress could not, without infringing upon powers reserved to the States by the Tenth Amendment, ''impose cumulative penalties above and beyond those specified by State law for infractions of . . . [a] State's criminal code by its own citizens.'' Justice Cardozo, with whom Justices Brandeis and Stone were associated, dissented on the ground that, on its face, the statute levying this ''tax'' was ''an appropriate instrument of . . . fiscal policy. . . . Classification by Congress according to the nature of the calling affected by a tax . . . does not cease to be permissible because the line of division between callings to be favored and those to be reproved corresponds with a division between innocence and criminality under the statutes of a state.'' Id. 294, 296, 297-98. In earlier cases it was nevertheless recognized that Congress also may tax what it forbids and that the basic tax on distilled spirits remained valid and enforceable during as well as after the life of the Amendment. See United States v. Yuginovich, 256 U.S. 450, 462 (1921); United States v. Stafoff, 260 U.S. 477 (1923); United States v. Rizzo, 297 U.S. 530 (1936).
[Footnote 9] United States v. Mack, 295 U.S. 480 (1935).
so where is the amendment to ban pot?
so how does the U.S. supreme court abel govern non interstate traffic in any substance?
-
Originally posted by Toad
I see neither Sandman nor RPM desire to discuss judicial activism wrt what it means.
Let me ask this then:
Sandman or RPM, do you agree or disagree with the SC decision? Precisely would YOU have voted with the minority or the majority? Why?
Do I agree with the decision? No. Would I have voted with the minority? Yes. Individual states should have the right to make and enforce their own laws. When you cross state lines, that's where federal enforcement should begin. In this case, there was no crossing of state lines by anyone other than the Feds.
In each of the instances cited no judge has made or created any law. They ruled a law unconstitutional and struck it down. That's the SCOTUS's job.
-
Federal law trumps state law, as determined by a little tussle in the mid 1800s, regardless of interstate traffic.
-
I may be ignorant here but isn't there federal laws NOW that encompas the entire union not just selected states.....arent they in fact constitutional?
-
Originally posted by rpm
Do I agree with the decision? No. Would I have voted with the minority? Yes. Individual states should have the right to make and enforce their own laws. When you cross state lines, that's where federal enforcement should begin. In this case, there was no crossing of state lines by anyone other than the Feds.
In each of the instances cited no judge has made or created any law. They ruled a law unconstitutional and struck it down. That's the SCOTUS's job.
Good.
You disagree with the decision and would have voted with the minority, basing your opposition on States' Rights.
I happen to agree with your assessment.
Now, given that you disagree, where do you find fault in the decision of the majority?
The majority said the federal law, the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, was a valid exercise of federal power by the US Congress.
Government lawyers said it would be difficult to enforce the nation's drug laws if there was an exception for medical marijuana.
Stevens agreed with the government's argument. He said an exception for medical marijuana would leave a "gaping hole" in the federal drug law.
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.
So it boils down to the SC allowing Congress to regulate medical marijuana because the Constitution allows Congress to regulate commerce among the states. Thus, the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 is a form of interstate commerce regulation.
Here's what the Constitution actually says:
Section. 8.
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Clause 2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
Clause 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
etc.,
etc.,
Now, you don't think that's a bit of a reach from what the actual text of the Constitution says?
I'd say it's a HUGE reach from regulating "Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;" to saying that California cannot allow medical marijuana because marijuana is sold in interstate commerce.
In fact, it's near laughable. IMO.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
^
RPM?
-
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.
-
Gimme a break Toad, I'm reading more than 1 thread.
-
Originally posted by storch
roe v wade
Roe v. Wade is not a law. This just in.
-
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:
"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.
-
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. ;)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
:rofl
I'm sorry.... but I am enjoying this too much. I should stop.
-
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. :)
-
I think you need to read Sandy's post 1 more time Toad.
-
Originally posted by Toad
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 will or will not support each judge based on his or her track record. Just as I do politicians.
-
My wife hurt her back recently. She was prescribed a drug that reduced the pain and made her mellow and a little spaced out. All perfectly legal. Marijuana does pretty much the same thing.
Marijuana should be be treated like any other drug. It should go through the full FDA procedure. Tests etc etc Then prescibed like any other drug as required.
The problem is that it has acquired this whole mystique because of it's illegality. If it had only been discovered last year. It would only be mentioned in medical journals as a yet another painkilling drug. Just like the one they gave my wife. It's all a question of perception.
In fact it seems these days the the drugs of choice for the celebs are in fact prescription drugs. Kelly Osbourne, that guy from Friends. They are all at it. Hell! the only drug that isn't addictive is pot.
-
Oh, gang me all you like then.
I like good, tough discussions with folks that have strongly held values.
I like it even better when they're forced over to my side because of "activist" judges stretching the Constitution.
;)
RPM, well.... just about all the majority voters on this issue have a track record of voting to expand the power of the Federal government over the States.
What you get is rulings like this one, where the Constitution is stretched way out of its normal shape to give the Feds powers they shouldn't have.
Might want to examine those track records closely for folks that don't support State's rights. ;)
Those that do support States Rights are usually found in the "strict constructionist" Constitutional camp. The kind Bush will appoint. ;)
-
There have been studies that show negative effects.
Not recommended for:
Depression Daily use of marijuana was associated with a 5-fold increased risk for later developing depression and anxiety among
adolescent females in a study of 1,601 Australian students aged 14-15 years at baseline who were followed for seven years. Weekly or more frequent marijuana use was associated with a 2-fold increased risk. Depression and anxiety in
teenagers was not predictive of later cannabis use. [BMJ 2002;325(7374): pp.1195-8]
Schizophrenia Having ever using marijuana was associated with an increased risk of developing schizophrenia in a study of 50,087 Swedish men 18 to 20 years old. Using marijuana greater than 50 times was associated with a nearly 7-fold increased risk for developing schizophrenia. [BMJ 2002;325(7374): pp.1199-2001]
Similar results were obtained in New Zealand subjects. [BMJ 2002;325(7374): pp.1212-3]
-
Originally posted by Toad
RPM, well.... just about all the majority voters on this issue have a track record of voting to expand the power of the Federal government over the States.
What you get is rulings like this one, where the Constitution is stretched way out of its normal shape to give the Feds powers they shouldn't have.
Might want to examine those track records closely for folks that don't support State's rights. ;)
Those that do support States Rights are usually found in the "strict constructionist" Constitutional camp. The kind Bush will appoint. ;)
Ah, but I don't use State's Rights as the sole determining factor. Say, isn't O'Conner suppossed to be one of those liberal types? This decision was very mixed up.
-
I hope they legalize pot so that I don't have to compete in life as much. Anybody can beat a pot head.
lazs
-
Originally posted by rpm
Ah, but I don't use State's Rights as the sole determining factor. Say, isn't O'Conner suppossed to be one of those liberal types? This decision was very mixed up.
Perhaps you should. It's one of the primary indicators of whether or not a Justice will support a huge stretch of the Constitution to cover an issue such at this.
You want more of this? Ignore their record as either a "strict constructionist" or an "activist".
O'Connor, I believe, is considered one of the middle of the road Justices. She's a "swing voter".