1 edit
Originally posted by StarValleyWyNo, I'm saying when he explicitly sided with the Federal government in Gonzales v. Raich, and claimed that the Federal Government could, via the Controlled Substances Act, declare marijuana a Class I narcotic and hence ban it across the country, even when people in individual states pass laws allowing it for medical purposes, that his is ignoring federalism (and his originalism). Have you read this case?
So you are saying that his saying "there is no justification given in the constitution for the courts right to impose laws of this nature upon the states", that he was ignoring federalism? LOL
I must have missed that part. All he said was that the legislatures needed to pass laws and THEN bring it before the courts. What happened was it was brought b ...[text shortened]... ablish precedent FIRST... before the law was actually even considered by a vote of the people.
EDIT: By the way, where did you find that quote by Scalia? Can you provide a reference?
Originally posted by bbarrhttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=03-1454#concurrence1
No, I'm saying when he explicitly sided with the Federal government in Gonzales v. Raich, and claimed that the Federal Government could, via the Controlled Substances Act, declare marijuana a Class I narcotic and hence ban it across the country, even when people in individual states pass laws allowing it for medical purposes, that his is ignoring federalism (a ...[text shortened]... e?
EDIT: By the way, where did you find that quote by Scalia? Can you provide a reference?
He wrote separately.
I write separately because my understanding of the doctrinal foundation on which that holding rests is, if not inconsistent with that of the Court, at least more nuanced.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI didn't say his view wasn't nuanced, I said this case was one where he sided with federal power over states rights, even when the issue was legislated by the people in the state. Even those wackos at the National Review agree:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=03-1454#concurrence1
He wrote separately.
[b]I write separately because my understanding of the doctrinal foundation on which that holding rests is, if not inconsistent with that of the Court, at least more nuanced.[/b]
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/barnett200506090741.asp
2 edits
Originally posted by bbarrFrom his part A layout:
I didn't say his view wasn't nuanced, I said this case was one where he sided with federal power over states rights, even when the issue was legislated by the people in the state. Even those wackos at the National Review agree:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/barnett200506090741.asp
The majority's treatment of the substantial effects test is malleable, because the majority expands the relevant conduct. By defining the class at a high level of generality (as the intrastate manufacture and possession of marijuana), the majority overlooks that individuals authorized by state law to manufacture and possess medical marijuana exert no demonstrable effect on the interstate drug market. Supra, at 7-8. The majority ignores that whether a particular activity substantially affects interstate commerce--and thus comes within Congress' reach on the majority's approach--can turn on a number of objective factors, like state action or features of the regulated activity itself. Ante, at 6-7 (O'Connor, J., dissenting). For instance, here, if California and other States are effectively regulating medical marijuana users, then these users have little effect on the interstate drug trade.6
He seems to be protesting the majority and striking out in favor of the rights of the state, not necessarily the individual. By saying that what happens INSIDE the state has no real consequence in INTERSTATE commerce, he is saying that the majority opinion is flawed. Leave the right within the state.
1 edit
Originally posted by StarValleyWyYes, so? What does this have to do with Scalia's support of the federal government's power to tell people in California what they can pass laws about, and what they can do with their own bodies? Do you think the Founders thought that the federal government the power to prevent access to medicine in individual states under the guise of regulating interstate commerce?
From his part A layout:
The majority's treatment of the substantial effects test is malleable, because the majority expands the relevant conduct. By defining the class at a high level of generality (as the intrastate manufacture and possession of marijuana), the[b] majority overlooks that individuals authorized by state law to manufacture and possess ical marijuana users, then these users have little effect on the interstate drug trade.6[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrHere is his final summary.
Yes, so? What does this have to do with Scalia's support of the federal government's power to tell people in California what they can pass laws about, and what they can do with their own bodies? Do you think the Founders thought that the federal government the power to prevent access to medicine in individual states under the guise of regulating interstate commerce?
The majority prevents States like California from devising drug policies that they have concluded provide much-needed respite to the seriously ill. It does so without any serious inquiry into the necessity for federal regulation or the propriety of "displac[ing] state regulation in areas of traditional state concern," id., at 583 (Kennedy, J., concurring). The majority's rush to embrace federal power "is especially unfortunate given the importance of showing respect for the sovereign States that comprise our Federal Union." United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, 532 U. S. 483, 502 (2001) (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment). Our federalist system, properly understood, allows California and a growing number of other States to decide for themselves how to safeguard the health and welfare of their citizens. I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. I respectfully dissent
Read it carefully. He is locked into this because it offers the ONLY future hope for the state to pass reasonable laws.
One cause for confusion might be that he voted in the majority. The reason he did was so he could issue a dissenting opinion. If he had voted in the minority, it is not allowed, by definition. One can't dissent from a losing proposition.
By casting a meaningless "yea" vote, he was allowed to write the dissenting opinion. The issue was decided without his vote.
1 edit
Originally posted by StarValleyWyYou're telling me to read carefully? The quote you provided is from Justice Thomas' dissent, not Scalia's concurrence.
Here is his final summary.
The majority prevents States like California from devising drug policies that they have concluded provide much-needed respite to the seriously ill. It does so without any serious inquiry into the necessity for federal regulation or the propriety of "displac[ing] state regulation in areas of traditional state concern," id ed into this because it offers the ONLY future hope for the state to pass reasonable laws.
1 edit
Originally posted by StarValleyWyThe only people who write dissenting opinions on the court are those who disagree with the majority vote. Justices can write seperate concurring opinions if the agree with they majority for reasons not explicated in the majority opinion.
One cause for confusion might be that he voted in the majority. The reason he did was so he could issue a dissenting opinion. If he had voted in the minority, it is not allowed, by definition. One can't dissent from a losing proposition.
By casting a meaningless "yea" vote, he was allowed to write the dissenting opinion. The issue was decided without his vote.
Originally posted by bbarrYou are correct. Thomas is rather my favorite. I got my bookmark clicker off a bit. Here is Scalias summary in his writing. As you can note, he seems a bit pissed that NEITHER respondent or dissenters suggest any violation of state soverignty OF THE SORT THAT WOULD RENDER THIS REGULATION INAPPROPRIATE. I think that had they done so, he would have found. Maybe not. Perhaps.
You're telling me to read carefully? The quote you provided is from Justice Thomas' dissent, not Scalia's concurrence.
Finally, neither respondents nor the dissenters suggest any violation of state sovereignty of the sort that would render this regulation "inappropriate," id., at 421--except to argue that the CSA regulates an area typically left to state regulation. See post, at 6-7, 11 (opinion of O'Connor, J.); post, at 8-9 (opinion of Thomas, J.); Brief for Respondents 39-42. That is not enough to render federal regulation an inappropriate means. The Court has repeatedly recognized that, if authorized by the commerce power, Congress may regulate private endeavors "even when [that regulation] may pre-empt express state-law determinations contrary to the result which has commended itself to the collective wisdom of Congress." National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U. S. 833, 840 (1976); see Cleveland v. United States, 329 U. S. 14, 19 (1946); McCulloch, supra, at 424. At bottom, respondents' state-sovereignty argument reduces to the contention that federal regulation of the activities permitted by California's Compassionate Use Act is not sufficiently necessary to be "necessary and proper" to Congress's regulation of the interstate market. For the reasons given above and in the Court's opinion, I cannot agree.
***
I thus agree with the Court that, however the class of regulated activities is subdivided, Congress could reasonably conclude that its objective of prohibiting marijuana from the interstate market "could be undercut" if those activities were excepted from its general scheme of regulation. See Lopez, 514 U. S., at 561. That is sufficient to authorize the application of the CSA to respondents.
btw.... Now you know why it was so important not to let lefty demogogues get Thomas with Anita Hill. lol Thomas Rocks!
2 edits
I saw justice Scalia on CSPAN ... At the Wilson Center. I used my "memory" of that in my states right defense of the Marijuana ruling. OOOpppps. I DID get him mixed up with Thomas. The old grey mind ain't what it used to be. In trying to find that broadcast, I did find this link, if you want to know his thinking on "the living constitution".
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legal_issues/legal_updates/us_supreme_court/scalia-constitutional-speech.htm