Marijauna Legal in Denver!

[St. Stalin the Apathetic]

Originally Posted by bfp

See Justice Thomas' dissent in Gonzales vs Raich. He is suggesting that so long the marijuana does not cross state lines regarding the selling and trade of the product, and it's cultivated per each individual and sold in the same state, it's okay.

So if the people of Colorodo were to pass such a law backing this measure, I see the Supreme Court backing the voters of Colorodo.


http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/su...-1454.ZD1.html

Sure, but the current lead case on this issue goes like this.... and I'm gonna concede that I could well be wrong here and there as I'm dredging this one up from deep murky ornery places...... but the general idea is accurate


Fact Patern: Farmer enrolled in government agriculture plan that pays wheat croppers not to grow wheat. Farmer plants a small field of wheat to use on his farm to feat his own cattle and other uses on the farm.

Court holds that this violates the program's purpose which is held up by the Interstate Commerce Clause. The Court reasons that the Dept. of Ag can regulate commerce that is 1) not commerce and 2) conducted wholely within the boundries of a single state. The court reasoned that the farmer's growing of wheat impacted interstate commerce in so far as his growing of wheat precluded the possibility of him perhaps buying wheat that may have been grown, proecessed etc out of state. It is this logic that irks me and causes me to declare that the ICC has been stretched beyond its intended limits. I would point to this as judicial activism because the ruling so stretches credibility in order to give effect to a preferred policy that it cannot be defended on a precedential basis.... I'll see if I can find the case.



I got the facts a bit goofed but not so much to matter - here's a wiki reference WICKARD v. FILBURN, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) and another directly to the case - http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=317&invol=111