Monday, June 06, 2005
Supreme Court Says State Medical Marijuana Laws Are Subject to Commerce Clause of Constitution
I don't understand their logic. From Justice Thomas' dissent:
Scalia wrote a concurring opinion based on different judicial logic which I will have to read.
I don't understand their logic. From Justice Thomas' dissent:
Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything–and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.
Scalia wrote a concurring opinion based on different judicial logic which I will have to read.
Comments:
<< Home
It's confusing, at best. The commerce clause has been used to smuggle every manner of mischief into constitutional jurisprudence over the past--gosh, I don't know--150 years or so.
A judicial conservative might rule in favor of applying the commerce clause here, but he's certainly not acting as a judicial conservative when he does.
Scalia is one of my heroes, but there are many who say that Thomas is actually the more consistent originalist--and I tend to agree with that assessment.
Post a Comment
A judicial conservative might rule in favor of applying the commerce clause here, but he's certainly not acting as a judicial conservative when he does.
Scalia is one of my heroes, but there are many who say that Thomas is actually the more consistent originalist--and I tend to agree with that assessment.
<< Home
