[Big Mac]

I think it's appropriate to create a new thread dealing with the debate created by the Sotomayor confirmation hearings.

A particular reason why I've created this thread is to discuss Senator Feinstein's questioning of Sotomayor over the Commerce clause from this morning. In short (and correct me if this summary is lacking), Senator Feinstein said that through the past 60 years the courts have allowed Congress to have great leeway in writing laws on a diverse range of topics that find their authorization in the Commerce Clause. However, in the last decade, the Supreme Court has, according to Feinstein, begun narrowing the scope of Congress's authority to legislate based on the Commerce Clause. Laws ranging from gun bans near schools, environmental laws and Cap-and-Trade (and I think she gave other examples) have been created on the basis of Commerce Clause. Feinstein asked Sotomayor for her view on the Court's new jurisprudence in this area.

Sotomayor replied in a very general fashion, noting that many such cases are pending at the Supreme Court level right now. She said that those previous cases took into account a variety of factors, including such as whether or not the law was addressing an economic issue.

In response to her reply, Senator Feinstein said that she hoped Sotomayor would be mindful that (in Feinstein's view) Congress needs to have the power to legislate in these areas and thus that the Court should return to its broader construction of the powers conferred to Congress by the Commerce Clause.

Here's my view: Through this line of questioning, Senator Feinstein has shown that she is irked that the Court has in recent years recognized that the Commerce Clause is not the open invitation to legislate on anything and everything that Feinstein and her big government colleagues wish it to be. And at least in her response to Feinstein, Sotomayor recognizes that there are valid factors that narrow the scope of the Commerce Clause and thus reduce the power of Congress to broadly legislate based on the Clause's authority. I don't think this was quite the response Feinstein was looking for, so I give Judge Sotomayor credit for that.

I don't think that Feinstein appreciates that the Constitution does not grant Congress the power to legislate on every matter under the sun. If that were the case, it would have been completely unnecessary and superfluous for the Constitution to include the enumerated powers of Congress in Article 1 § 8, as James Madison points out in the Federalist Papers. When Feinstein says that Congress must have the power to legislate on essentially any matter it sees fit (not her words but clearly her implication), based on the Commerce Clause, she is conceding the point that such legislation is not authorized by Congress's enumerated powers; she is also simultaneously ignoring that the Commerce Clause isn't completely open ended.

It is clear that the Commerce Clause, which specifically provides for the regulation of commerce between the states, was never meant to give Congress the open ended legislative authority that Feinstein desires. As an aside, many also don't understand that the term regulate no longer has the same meaning it had in the era of the Ratification. As far as I know the history, the record shows that to regulate interstate commerce meant not to impose impediments to commerce but rather to make commerce regular or [uniform] between the states. One of the reasons why the Constitution was adopted over the Articles of Confederation was that states were imposing a range of inconsistent regulations on interstate commerce between them. The Constitution's Commerce Clause was meant primarily to foster [uniform] trade between the states and certainly not to give Congress free reign to legislate on any and all matters that go beyond Article 1 § 8.

I also think it's telling that Feinstein said specifically that the broader interpretation of the Commerce Clause has been around for the last sixty years. I'd like the following question to be posed to her: What change occurred 60 years ago that allowed for that much broader interpretation of the Commerce Clause? And what made that change Constitutional? After all, if that broad reading began to be used by Congress 60 years ago, that means that during the 162 years previous to 1949, the federal government used the narrower interpretation of the Commerce Clause that I favor. I have a feeling that the change Feinstein is alluding to is the New Deal and FDR's accursed Court Packing Scheme, but that's further back than Feinstein is alluding to.

I thought it was humorous that the FNC anchor said that the discussion of the Commerce Clause was boring to her. It wasn't to me but may be to many others. Feel free to use this thread to discuss any other aspect of the hearings.

[Big Mac]

Senator Kyle has done the best for the Republicans so far. Interesting too is the fact that Leahy cut him off unexpectedly. I don't think he liked where Kyle was going.

As much as I dislike him, Schumer's defense was effective. It will be interesting to see what comes next.

[stevesnj]

Sotomayor is hangging tough and the Republicans are grasping at anything they can to make her look bad. Even one Rep. Senator said he will vote for her!! seems her nomination is a slam dunk for sure! Woo Hoo!!

[hyteckit]

So the Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the states, and with the Native American tribes.

You disagree with what regulate means? You believe to regulate commerce meant not to impose impediments to commerce but rather to make commerce regular or free between the states. It is your interpretation that the Constitution's Commerce Clause was meant primarily to foster free trade between the states and certainly not to give Congress free reign to legislate on any and all matters that go beyond Article 1 § 8.

Really?

Our first president George Washington and Congress pass Tariff Act of 1789, which impose impediments to commerce and goes against free trade.


Seems to me that Senator Feinstein interpreted the Commerce Clause similar to President Washington and our founding fathers on what regulate means.

[hyteckit]

Big Mac's interpretation of the Commerce Clause and what regulate means:

regulate commerce means to foster free trade.

US Constitution (adopted 9/17/1787) - Commerce Clause intended to regulate commerce foster free trade with foreign nations, among the states, and with the Native American tribes.



However, less than 2 years after the US Constitution was adopted.


Tariff Act of 1789 (7/4/1789) passed by Pres. George Washington and the first Congress in order to protect domestic trade and raise revenue for the federal government. The constitutional authority for the act is found in the powers given to Congress "to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imports and Excises" and "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations."

Quite obvious "regulate commerce" with foreign nations does mean fostering free trade with foreign nations. Quite the opposite.


Seems to me Big Mac's interpretation of "regulate" commerce is quite different from how Pres. George Washington and the first Congress interpreted it to mean then. It's quite clear to me that "regulate commerce" in the Commerce Clause of the Constitution does not mean to foster "free trade", or at least not how Pres. George Washington and the first Congress interpret it to mean.


Just wishful thinking on the part of free-trade advocates.

[Big Mac]

Thanks hyteckit, but tariffs are authorized by Article 1 § 8's expressed power to "lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises," not the Commerce Clause.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Thanks hyteckit, but tariffs are authorized by Article 1 § 8's expressed power to "lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises," not the Commerce Clause.

As mentioned in my previous post,

The constitutional authority for the act is found in the powers given to Congress "to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imports and Excises" and "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations."

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_...2/tariffs.html

The Constitution of the United States empowered Congress in Article I “to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises” and “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.” The first enactment made by Congress was the Tariff Act of 1789, which was intended to encourage the domestic manufacture of glass, earthenware, and other products. Its primary purpose, however, was to raise revenue; it provided for an average duty rate of about 8.5 percent.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3407400280.html

The Tariff Act of 1789 (1 Stat. 24), signed into law by President George Washington on July 4, 1789, was the first substantive legislation passed by the first Congress. This act, together with the Collection Act of 1789, operated as a device both to protect trade and to raise revenues for the federal government. The constitutional authority for the act is found in the powers given to Congress "to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imports and Excises" and "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations"

[Big Mac]

I disagree with you on the meaning of regulate in the Constitution, but you're ignoring my central point about the Commerce Clause being misused in the way Feinstein approves of to authorize any legislation Congress wants to undertake outside of the enumerated powers Article 1 § 8.

[hyteckit]

The Commerce Clause has nothing to do with "free trade" or laissez faire.

Free trade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Free Trade meant you allow trade to regulate itself without government intervention. Interventions include subsidies, taxes and tariffs, non-tariff barriers, such as regulatory legislation and quotas.


The Commerce Clause was intended to facilitate trade or to promote the "free-flow" of trade, not "free trade" or laissez faire.

That's why you have the Sherman Antitrust Act (1890) as the result of the Commerce Clause, which promotes the "free-flow" of trade by promoting healthy competition.

[hyteckit]

Here's what Alexander Hamilton had to say about regulating trade:

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 (Commerce)

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 (Commerce): Alexander Hamilton, Continentalist, no. 5

The vesting Congress with the power of regulating trade ought to have been a principal object of the confederation for a variety of reasons. It is as necessary for the purposes of commerce as of revenue. There are some, who maintain, that trade will regulate itself, and is not to be benefitted by the encouragements, or restraints of government. Such persons will imagine, that there is no need of a common directing power. This is one of those wild speculative paradoxes, which have grown into credit among us, contrary to the uniform practice and sense of the most enlightened nations. Contradicted by the numerous institutions and laws, that exist every where for the benefit of trade, by the pains taken to cultivate particular branches and to discourage others, by the known advantages derived from those measures, and by the palpable evils that would attend their discontinuance--it must be rejected by every man acquainted with commercial history. Commerce, like other things, has its fixed principles, according to which it must be regulated; if these are understood and observed, it will be promoted by the attention of government, if unknown, or violated, it will be injured--but it is the same with every other part of administration.

[Big Mac]

Good point about free trade (that's not an apropos term to use), but you're still ignoring my central concern about the Commerce Clause being misused to authorize any legislation under the sun, choosing instead to focus on a side point that I made.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Good point about free trade (that's not an apropos term to use), but you're still ignoring my central concern about the Commerce Clause being misused to authorize any legislation under the sun, choosing instead to focus on a side point that I made.

You are making arguments on non-existent legislation and about your fear that any legislation under the sun will be authorized.

I don't know how to remove your fear since there's isn't anything concrete. It's just in your mind right now.

What's new?

Democrats want to regulate trade. Republicans want less regulation.

Congress regulates interstate trade.

Democrats are in control of congress.

You hate Democrats and what democrats might do. You are fearful of Diana Feinstein.


I know, you are fearful. But there isn't anything to argue about. The US Supreme Court has ruled in favor of commerce regulations by the federal government most of the time because it is authorized by the Commerce Clause.

The only thing to discuss is why you are so fearful.

[Big Mac]

Non-existent legislation? Did you watch Feinstein and Sotomayor today?

[subego]

I think what Big Mac is talking about is an example like the Federal school gun ban.

Congress feels the commerce clause gives the authority to ban guns around schools if it can be proven the gun was traded across state lines.

You may disagree, but I see this link as pretty tenuous.

An example like this has nothing to do with whether one tends to be for or against trade regulation, it's about using the ability to regulate trade for things that really don't have anything to do with trade.


Edit: Just to be clear, I don't have any issue with the idea of banning guns around schools, I just don't see an actual link between it and trade, don't see why these can't be state laws, and if it's so important the Federal government has to get involved, don't see why the same result can't be carrot and sticked.

[Dork.]

Why is Al Franken on the Judiciary committee? Seems like kind of an odd assignment....

[Dakar V]

I don't know, but I enjoyed Stewart's comment on the Daily Show last night that he was waiting for him to yell, "Live, from New York, IT'S SATURDAY NIGHT!"

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by subego 

I think what Big Mac is talking about is an example like the Federal school gun ban.

I think hyteckit's silence implies that either he didn't understand what I was talking about or figured out there was no other way to troll in that context.

[subego]

I'll bet you a dime he has yet to put in his last word.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I think hyteckit's silence implies that either he didn't understand what I was talking about or figured out there was no other way to troll in that context.

My silence meant I have to eat and work.

Didn't realize my job was to respond to your questions immediately.

[hyteckit]

So federal government should not regulate advertisement or sales of certain products like guns, alcohol, or pornography near schools?

Is that what Big Mac fears?

[BadKosh]

I wonder why such a wize latina would want lesser educated firemen to battle the fire at your house.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

My silence meant I have to eat and work.

Didn't realize my job was to respond to your questions immediately.

Usually you do respond immediately. I won't hold your failure to do so against you, though.

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

So federal government should not regulate advertisement or sales of certain products like guns, alcohol, or pornography near schools?

Is that what Big Mac fears?

I don't fear anything of the sort. It's Senator Feinstein who fears that the Court is departing from New Deal era jurisprudence regarding the Commerce Clause by interpreting it more narrowly, which means that Congress won't be able to invoke the clause when legislating on matters that obviously have nothing to do with interstate commerce.

[OldManMac]

You can't make stuff like this up; it's hilarious!

http://www.alternet.org/rights/14132...ayor_hearings/

[stumblinmike]

Maybe the right think the Hispanic population is shrinking, and this is their way back to power..

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

So federal government should not regulate advertisement or sales of certain products like guns, alcohol, or pornography near schools?

Is that what Big Mac fears?

Not if the Constitution doesn't allow it, no. Do you think the government should be free to ignore our Constitutional rights whenever it's convenient?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Not if the Constitution doesn't allow it, no. Do you think the government should be free to ignore our Constitutional rights whenever it's convenient?

For example?

Are we just arguing about hypothetical non-existent laws that a Democratic controlled Congress might or might not passed?

How is regulating the sale and advertisement of guns near schools unconstitutional?

Seems like paranoia on Big Mac's part. Big Mac is fearing Democrats in Congress is going to use the Commerce Clause "to legislate on every matter under the sun."



Yeah, Congress is going to ban the word "conservative", "Republicans", and "Sarah Palin" from all media.

Lets discuss this hypothetical law Congress might pass using the Commerce Clause that might violate the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.

[hyteckit]

I think you guys should be more afraid about what Pres. Bush and what VP Dick Cheney was able to do without Congress passing it or even Congress knowing it.


Like Pres. Bush declaring War instead of Congress.
VP Dick Cheney with his secret CIA program that was kept from congress and CIA director.
Warrantless wiretapping on US citizens.


Lets discuss that, instead of hypothetical threats to our constitution. Lets discuss real threats to our Constitution.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I don't fear anything of the sort. It's Senator Feinstein who fears that the Court is departing from New Deal era jurisprudence regarding the Commerce Clause by interpreting it more narrowly, which means that Congress won't be able to invoke the clause when legislating on matters that obviously have nothing to do with interstate commerce.

Like? Example of a law passed using the Commerce Clause that has nothing to do with interstate commerce?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Like? Example of a law passed using the Commerce Clause that has nothing to do with interstate commerce?

For example, it's been found that businesses that serve only local customers can be totally regulated by the federal government if they have bought anything — snacks, pencils, whatever — from out of state. Similarly, California's medical marijuana program was shut down on the grounds of interstate commerce — until the stricter Supreme Court standards that Feinstein is bitching about here came into play and splashed some cold water in the face of a legislative branch that had forgotten it had Constitutional limits.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I think you guys should be more afraid about what Pres. Bush and what VP Dick Cheney was able to do without Congress passing it or even Congress knowing it.


Like Pres. Bush declaring War instead of Congress.
VP Dick Cheney with his secret CIA program that was kept from congress and CIA director.
Warrantless wiretapping on US citizens.


Lets discuss that, instead of hypothetical threats to our constitution.

No, let's not. That would be a derail, as well as quite boring. If you'd like to start a thread about old news that people are sick of talking about, you are free to do so.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

For example, it's been found that businesses that serve only local customers can be totally regulated by the federal government if they have bought anything — snacks, pencils, whatever — from out of state. Similarly, California's medical marijuana program was shut down on the grounds of interstate commerce — until the stricter Supreme Court standards that Feinstein is bitching about here came into play and splashed some cold water in the face of a legislative branch that had forgotten it had Constitutional limits.

In the case of marijuana, it would be classified as a drug, medical or illegal. So that would mean it's regulated under the federal government and the FDA, and enforced by the DEA.

It comes under the Controlled Substances Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act

I personally support the legalization of marijuana, but I don't think it has anything to do with Judge Sotomayor or the Commerce Claus.

It just depends on Congress and the President to legalize it.

Aren't we waiting for Pres. Obama to legalize marijuana?



As for interstate commerce. I think it has become more important for congress to regulate commerce on a number of issues in this internet age as more and more commerce takes place on the internet.

Giving states and local government control over every aspect of trade make it hard for many ecommerce stores. Not just tax laws of each local and state government, but also what illegal and can't be sold or shipped to the area.

Aren't many states passing their new tax laws on internet commerce? California alone have many tax rates for multiple counties and districts.

Takes me days just calculate the sales tax owe to each county or district in California. Imaging having to do it for every state. It'll take me a month at least.

[hyteckit]

Honestly, there isn't really anything concrete to talk about in regards to Judge Sotomayor and the Commerce Clause.

Judge Sotomayor is replacing Judge Souter, not Scalia. The only thing that's going to happen is that the Supreme Court might become more conservative in its views.

I honestly don't understand Big Mac's paranoia over Judge Sotomayor and how she's going to dramatically going to make the US Supreme Court more liberal in their views.

I think it's liberals who should be worried about whether Judge Sotomayor might be too conservative in her views.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

In the case of marijuana, it would be classified as a drug, medical or illegal. So that would mean it's regulated under the federal government and the FDA, and enforced by the DEA.

It comes under the Controlled Substances Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act

I personally support the legalization of marijuana, but I don't think it has anything to do with Judge Sotomayor or the Commerce Claus.

Where in the Constitution are the FDA and DEA given the authority to regulate marijuana that's not being sold between states? That's right: The federal government has no right to do so. That's the point. They try to invoke the commerce clause to legitimize their actions (and yes, that was their justification for giving the FDA jurisdiction in this case), but as you say, this doesn't have anything to do with interstate commerce. If California says it's legal, then it's legal under the Constitution.

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

As for interstate commerce. I think it has become more important for congress to regulate commerce on a number of issues in this internet age as more and more commerce takes place on the internet.

Giving states and local government control over every aspect of trade make it hard for many ecommerce stores. Not just tax laws of each local and state government, but also what illegal and can't be sold or shipped to the area.

Aren't many states passing their taxes on internet commerce? California alone have many tax rates for multiple counties and districts.

Takes me days just calculate the sales tax owe to each county or district. Imaging having to do it for every state. It's take me a month at least.

So what?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Where in the Constitution are the FDA and DEA given the authority to regulate marijuana that's not being sold between states? That's right: The federal government has no right to do so. That's the point. They try to invoke the commerce clause to legitimize their actions (and yes, that was their justification for giving the FDA jurisdiction in this case), but as you say, this doesn't have anything to do with interstate commerce. If California says it's legal, then it's legal under the Constitution.

You mean it is unconstitutional for the DEA to bust my meth lab because I'm just doing local trade?

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

So what?

Because Congress should promote the free-flow of trade. If local and state governments are hindering trade, I think the federal government should step in to regulate it.

You think it's healthy for commerce when every state and local government state having their own tax rules on internet commerce?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

You mean it is unconstitutional for the DEA to bust my meth lab because I'm just doing local trade?

Unless the state consents to it, as far as I know. Again, I'm not saying "should be" or anything like that — I'm saying is. As in "an objective fact."

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Because Congress should promote the free-flow of trade. If local and state governments are hindering trade, I think the federal government should step in to regulate it.

You think it's healthy for commerce when every state and local government state having their own tax rules on internet commerce?

You think it's healthy for the government to be able to ignore your Constitutional rights whenever it's convenient? If we lived in the world you're pushing for, illegal wiretapping would be unquestionably OK, because apparently the Constitution doesn't apply when the government wants to do something that violates it.

If you feel that the government needs to be granted a new power, the correct way to go about that is to draft an amendment.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Unless the state consents to it, as far as I know. Again, I'm not saying "should be" or anything like that — I'm saying is. As in "an objective fact."

If it was unconstitutional, I bet many meth lab dealers who were busted by the DEA would like to know that or believe that the DEA has no jurisdiction on local drug enforcement. That's like busting a meth lab without a warrant.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

You think it's healthy for the government to be able to ignore your Constitutional rights whenever it's convenient? If we lived in the world you're pushing for, illegal wiretapping would be unquestionably OK, because apparently the Constitution doesn't apply when the government wants to do something that violates it.

If you feel that the government needs to be granted a new power, the correct way to go about that is to draft an amendment.

Ignoring my Constitutional rights? How so? I was talking about internet ecommerce, which would mean interstate commerce.

Commerce Clause allows federal government to regulate interstate commerce. No?


Maybe this thread should be changed to "Commerce Clause" since that would be more appropriate.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

If it was unconstitutional, I bet many meth lab dealers who were busted by the DEA would like to know that or believe that.

I'm pretty sure most meth busts are not in violation of state law and are done with the full cooperation of local authorities.

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Ignoring my Constitutional rights? How so? I was talking about internet ecommerce, which would mean interstate commerce.

Commerce Clause allows federal government to regulate interstate commerce. No?

I have no idea what you're on about. I never mentioned ecommerce, much less said that the government has no right to regulate it.

[hyteckit]

Okay, let's change the title to "Commerce Clause" since we have a separate "Cap and Trade" thread.

Right now, I'm saying "So What".

I still don't see how Judge Sotomayor, who is going to replace Judge Souter, going to make the US Supreme Court more liberal and allow Congress to pass anything under the sun as Big Mac has put it.


Isn't that just Big Mac's fear. Isn't that what the thread is about? About what Judge Sotomayor might allow a Democratic Congress to do?

I still have not seen a single concrete argument on how Judge Sotomayor is going to allow a Democratic Congress to pass anything under the sun, if she replaces Judge Souter.


Still sounds like a bunch of paranoia right now.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I'm pretty sure most meth busts are not in violation of state law and are done with the full cooperation of local authorities.

Except in marijuana bust cases in California, the DEA acted alone right?

[hyteckit]

By the way, here's California's Medical Marijuana website:

Medical Marijuana Program

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by stumblinmike 

Maybe the right think the Hispanic population is shrinking, and this is their way back to power..

I'm guessing they're hoping that the Hispanic population isn't racist, understands and believes in the U.S. Constitution, and doesn't want to send the country into an abyss.

They could be wrong though, I suppose.

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'm guessing they're hoping that the Hispanic population isn't racist, understands and believes in the U.S. Constitution, and doesn't want to send the country into an abyss.

They could be wrong though, I suppose.

Serious? Who are they? The poor put-upon white man?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I still don't see how Judge Sotomayor, who is going to replace Judge Souter, going to make the US Supreme Court more liberal and allow Congress to pass anything under the sun as Big Mac has put it.

Isn't that just Big Mac's fear. Isn't that what the thread is about? About what Judge Sotomayor might allow a Democratic Congress to do?

Not really. If you reread his OP, the topic is Dianne Feinstein's questions regarding the commerce clause. Feinstein seems to be trying to argue that Congress should be allowed to pass any law it wants, whether or not the Constitution allows such a law. She thinks it's a good thing how, for more than half a century, "the court did not strike down a single federal law for exceeding congressional power under the commerce clause."

If I read between the lines, I think Sotomayor did not really give the answer Feinstein was looking for.

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Except in marijuana bust cases in California, the DEA acted alone right?

Well, yes. The state said it was OK for the people to have medical marijuana and the federal government tried to overrule that.

[subego]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

So federal government should not regulate advertisement or sales of certain products like guns?

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

How is regulating the sale and advertisement of guns near schools unconstitutional?

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Like? Example of a law passed using the Commerce Clause that has nothing to do with interstate commerce?

The Federal school gun ban prohibits possession of a gun near a school if it can be shown that gun was traded across state lines.

This has nothing to do with commerce. If it was just regulation of advertisements and sales, I wouldn't have an issue because that does directly involve commerce.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Well, yes. The state said it was OK for the people to have medical marijuana and the federal government tried to overrule that.

Here's the case on Medical Marijuana and the US Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/06/sc...ana/index.html


Seems that only Justice O 'Connor, Justice Thomas, and Justice Rehnquist dissented, while Justice Scalia and the other Justices said the Federal Government has the right to regulate marijuana on a state level, in a 6-3 vote, because the the failure to do so “could … undercut” its regulation of interstate commerce.

So the conservative Justices seem to support greater Federal Government authority under the Commerce Clause. How is Judge Sotomayor going to change this?


The former Attorney General John Ashcoft and Alberto Gonzales has authorized the raids.

Our current Attorney General Eric Holder has announced that the US DOJ will no longer prosecute medical marijuana patients and providers who comply with their respective state laws.

[Chuckit]

Hyteckit, you appear to be throwing out random facts. You're not correcting any assertions I made. If you'd like to make an argument, please make it clearly.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Hyteckit, you appear to be throwing out random facts. You're not correcting any assertions I made. If you'd like to make an argument, please make it clearly.

My facts are not random. They are directly related to the marijuana case in California and the US Supreme Courts decision which you were talking about.

Seems to me it's the conservative Attorney Generals and the conservative US Justices who are the ones who support greater congressional power under the commerce clause. It's this ruling, Gonzales v. Raich, which allow the DEA to continue its raid on marijuana clinics in California and people who grow marijuana for medical use.


Not random. Directly pertaining to our discussion.

So now the discussion needs to be focus solely on Diane Feinstein and what she said? Is that what you are saying?

Let's not talk about who supported greater congressional power under the commerce clause in the California Medical Marijuana case, because that is like so random and so off topic.

No, the topic of the discussion is about the broader interpretation of the Commerce Clause.

[Chuckit]

They aren't presented as evidence in any sort of coherent argument. They are related to one case, but there is no overall point being made.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

They aren't presented as evidence in any sort of coherent argument. They are related to one case, but there is no overall point being made.

Pretty much like this thread.

[hyteckit]

Let me focus this thread.

The Federal Government's abuse of the Commerce Clause is bad.