|
|
Post by whoever on Sept 22, 2004 10:12:03 GMT -5
The upcoming session of the United States Supreme Court will decide (to my knowledge) it's very first 10th amendment issue when it hears arguments in the case of John Ashcroft, Attorney General, et al. v. Angel McClary Raich et al. This case will decide if the government of the United States has legal, constitutional jurisdiction over medical marijuana patients or their caregivers for growing or possessing marijuana under the authority granted under California's medical marijuana laws. Raich and company filed suit in the 9th federal circuit shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court decided that medical necessity was not a valid defense for breaking the federal anti-drug laws in U.S. v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers Coop - but in the same decision mentioned that a 9th or 10th amendment challenge had not been made, so that issue, while relevant, would not be decided at that time. The suit claimed that interstate commerce (the clause of the Constitution used to justify the federal drug laws) does not apply because all of the equipment used and all of the marijuana grown was purchased or used in the state of California by citizens of California. It also requested an injunction against the DEA to keep them from raiding the gardens of sick people. The case made it through the 9th circuit court of appeals and, in a 2 to 1 decision, remanded the case back to the circuit court for trial stating that there was enough evidence to support a valid case. The 9th circuit court of appeals also left the injunction in place. The federal government appealed and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Particulars on the decision by the 9th circuit can be found at: caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0315481p.pdfSo, now we see if the Supreme Court has federalism on it's mind. |
|
|
|
Post by outgirl on Sept 22, 2004 19:16:47 GMT -5
That is great...I think. It's hard to say how the court would vote. It seems so clear cut to most of us. So is this what happens to states rights when the fascists don't like what the states are doing. Keep us updated on this. In fact wish you'd post it on QV. There are some people there who would be interested in following this. Forgetting recreational use, this is something that touches so many lives. If marijuana can be used to treat MS or cancer or so many othe diseases, it is criminal to keep it from the people. Thanks Keith
|
|
|
|
Post by whoever on Sept 23, 2004 6:53:06 GMT -5
That is great...I think. It's hard to say how the court would vote. It seems so clear cut to most of us. So is this what happens to states rights when the fascists don't like what the states are doing. Keep us updated on this. In fact wish you'd post it on QV. There are some people there who would be interested in following this. Forgetting recreational use, this is something that touches so many lives. If marijuana can be used to treat MS or cancer or so many othe diseases, it is criminal to keep it from the people. Thanks Keith Well, IMHO, it has the potential to be great news. A majority of the court has went on record opposing mandatory minimum sentences, saying that more harm is done than good. A few justices have been openly critical of the current administration's domestic law enforcement policies - and Ashcroft in particular because he started having the US Attorney's office make written reports every time a federal judge deviated from the sentencing guidelines. Rhenquest and Kennedy have been particularly vocal about wanting to return to basic federalism and away from so much federal control. I think there's a feud going on between the executive and judicial branches right now. Take that with the basic common sense idea of WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO FUCK WITH TERMINALLY ILL PEOPLE and good news may come out of this yet. Personally, after reading the opinion of the court, that they made a good argument. The gov't's only response was that if they ruled against the government, it would damage efforts to "control the menece of drug abuse". Riiiiight  |
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Sept 23, 2004 7:53:25 GMT -5
There is a recent precedent for this. I don't remember where, but a guy built a machine gun from scratch and the fed nabbed him. It was thrown out on appeal because the guy was a machinist who made the entire thing himself, which meant the Commerce Clause didn't apply. The fed had no business in his business.
On a related note, the Commerce Clause is the most abused and distorted clause in the Constitution, next to the General Welfare clause.
- Rick
|
|
|
|
Post by whoever on Sept 23, 2004 7:54:45 GMT -5
On a related note, the Commerce Clause is the most abused and distorted clause in the Constitution, next to the General Welfare clause. - Rick  |
|
pyro
Full Member
Posts: 115
|
Post by pyro on Sept 23, 2004 15:02:13 GMT -5
"Don't sentence how we tell you to sentence and we're gonna put you on a list."
...
Now why would the USFG need full records of everytime a judge didn't sentence the way he is susposed to? *cough-cough-gestapo-cough-cough*
|
|
|
|
Post by outgirl on Sept 24, 2004 2:39:33 GMT -5
"Don't sentence how we tell you to sentence and we're gonna put you on a list." ... Now why would the USFG need full records of everytime a judge didn't sentence the way he is susposed to? *cough-cough-gestapo-cough-cough* |
|
|
|
Post by whoever on Sept 24, 2004 6:26:29 GMT -5
"Don't sentence how we tell you to sentence and we're gonna put you on a list." ... Now why would the USFG need full records of everytime a judge didn't sentence the way he is susposed to? *cough-cough-gestapo-cough-cough* The original idea of mandatory sentence guidelines was to keep sentences from skewing too harshly against the poor, the disenfranchised, and minorities. Unfortunately, the Rockefeller drug laws of New York showed that you can pervert this concept - which is why we have the largest per capita prison population on the planet. Whenever a judge deviated from the guidelines, he usually made the reason that he or she did so known in the ruling on the case. When judges started deviating from the guidelines with Ashcroft - as happened with Ed Rosenthal (who was convicted in Federal court of growing marijuana for sick people in California but didn't serve 1 extra day for it despite the US Attorney's push for a 10 year sentence) - Ashcroft told his Attorney's to submit a written report so he could seek possible disciplinary action against the "activist" judges. I've come to realize that the term "activist judge" is applied to any judge who doesn't believe the way the administration does. |
|
|
|
Post by whatever on Sept 27, 2004 22:11:12 GMT -5
Great information here. Looking forward to hearing more. I have to admit I'm only halfway hopeful, but still.
|
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Sept 28, 2004 8:46:50 GMT -5
Great information here. Looking forward to hearing more. I have to admit I'm only halfway hopeful, but still. Cautiously optimistic... - Rick |
|
|
|
Post by whoever on Oct 5, 2004 14:30:18 GMT -5
The case has been scheduled for oral arguments on Monday, 11/29/04 (curiously after the election).
|
|
...when he's around