Log in

No account? Create an account
Another argument for secession? - The California Secessionist Party [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
The California Secessionist Party

[ website | Free California ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

[Links:| Yahoo Group for California Secession ]

Another argument for secession? [Jun. 23rd, 2005|11:32 am]
The California Secessionist Party


Interesting excerpts from the decision by the Supreme Court regarding medical marijuana (Gonzales v. Raich):

From the majority opinion:

The case is made difficult by respondents' strong arguments that they will suffer irreparable harm because, despite a congressional finding to the contrary, marijuana does have valid therapeutic purposes. The question before us, however, is not whether it is wise to enforce the statute in these circumstances; rather, it is whether Congress' power to regulate interstate markets for medicinal substances encompasses the portions of those markets that are supplied with drugs produced and consumed locally.[...] The CSA [Controlled Substances Act] is a valid exercise of federal power, even as applied to troubling facts of this case.

The majority decision by the Supreme Court wasn't that Marijuana is not valid for medicinal purposes. On the contrary, they seem to believe that Marijuana was helping these women. Their decision was that even though the Marijuana never crossed state borders, Congress' Commerce Clause still applies because there is a national market for marijuana. This would essentially allow Congress to control anything within a state as long as they can show that it has a "National market". The real fight wasn't for the use of medical marijuana. It was for states rights.

From the dissenting opinion:

We enforce the "outer limits" of Congress' Commerce Clause authority not for their own sake, but to protect historic spheres of state sovereignty from excessive federal encroachment and thereby to maintain the distribution of power fundamental to our federalist system of government.

The dissenting opinion recognizes that since this marijuana never crossed state lines, it really didn't fall under the Congress' Commerce Clause. This marijuana was grown by Monson, cultivated by Monson and consumed by Monson, with doctors reccomendations. It seems impossible to me for the majority of the Supreme Court to argue that the marijuana grown in this case affected the federal drug market.