Comments on: Update II: Unhealthy & Unconstitutional (The Baucus Edition)

By: Myron Pauli

Myron Pauli — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:13:13 +0000

The quotes can be found by going to:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZS.html

and then look at the top for the individual opinions (html or pdf)
and flesh out the juicy parts.

By: Myron Pauli

Myron Pauli — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 03:10:13 +0000

Quotes on “regulation of interstate commerce” regarding medical marijuana from the 4 written decisions in Gonzales v. Raich (2005):

SCALIA: “Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.”

STEVENS: ” Prohibiting the intrastate possession or manufacture of an article of commerce is a rational (and commonly utilized) means of regulating commerce in that product”

O’ CONNOR: “Today the Court sanctions an application of the federal Controlled Substances Act that extinguishes that experiment, without any proof that the personal cultivation, possession, and use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, if economic activity in the first place, has a substantial effect on interstate commerce and is therefore an appropriate subject of federal regulation.”

THOMAS: “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.”

[Be good if everyone supplied the hyperlinks.]

By: Myron Pauli

Myron Pauli — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 02:53:17 +0000

The Supremes in Wickard v. Filburn ruled in 1942 that farmer Filburn, a commercial farmer, engaged in interstate commerce when he fed home grown wheat to his animals. Even worse was Gonzales v. Raich where pot smoker Raich was interfering with interstate commerce in 2005. Thomas is the only dissenter still on the Court. So Turley is correct about the general perversion of the Constitution by the douploistic statist Republicrats and Demoplicans. [I didn’t hear Turley objecting to such perversion; he seconded it.]

A “living constitution” (e.g. flexible) is truly dead while a “dead constittion” (e.g. adhered to) is the only meaningful living type.

Congressman Clyburn correctly points out that basically EVERYTHING the Congress does these days is not authorized under Article 1 Section 8.

Here is the Court on medical marijuana and interstate commerce:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZS.html

By: Steve Hogan

Steve Hogan — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 01:35:45 +0000

I saw Turley’s talk at the Future of Freedom Foundation’s gathering last year. He is good on the civil liberties, but his views on the 10th Amendment are disappointing.

Why are otherwise intelligent individuals so willing to cherry-pick parts of the Constitution they like while ignoring the rest? If Turley and others feel something needs to be changed, there’s an amendment process. Or have they conveniently forgotten that too?

But why go to all that trouble of getting 3/4ths of the states (States? What are those?) and 2/3rd of both houses when Congress can ignore its oath and clearly violate the thing they’re supposed to uphold. Hell, they don’t even bother reading the bills any longer!

Let’s face it: this Congress may be the weakest, most morally-challenged collection of thieves and conmen in history. And that’s saying something.