No, No Mary Jane

[beausox]

Supremes by 6!-3 rule medicinal marijuana laws to be null. Behind virtually every dooby lurks a liberterian. Scream on if you like but this muddies the waters re: the upcoming replacement of at least two Justices. Will liberals rediscover States Rights in the penumbra?

Edit: the penumbra part is a reference to Roe in that Justice Douglas not having found a Constitutional mention of abortion divined that the right to an abortion emanated from a penumbra of 9th amendment. Nearly 40 state Legislatures had already "liberalized" abortion statutes prior to Roe and a penumbra is not firm ground for a landmark decision. Yet Douglas et al could not wait. Such is the legacy of judicial activism.

Further beclouding the issue is that Scalia and Thomas differed. So much for a monolithic Court?

[Johnny Coli]

penumbra

n. pl. pe·num·brae (-br) or pe·num·bras

1. A partial shadow, as in an eclipse, between regions of complete shadow and complete illumination.

2. The grayish outer part of a sunspot.

3. An area in which something exists to a lesser or uncertain degree: “The First Amendment has a penumbra where privacy is protected from governmental intrusion” (Joseph A. Califano, Jr.).

4. An outlying surrounding region; a periphery: “Downtown Chicago and its penumbra also stand rejuvenated” (John McCormick).

[Ghost of BiB]

penumbra

n. pl. pe·num·brae (-br) or pe·num·bras

1. A partial shadow, as in an eclipse, between regions of complete shadow and complete illumination.

2. The grayish outer part of a sunspot.

3. An area in which something exists to a lesser or uncertain degree: “The First Amendment has a penumbra where privacy is protected from governmental intrusion” (Joseph A. Califano, Jr.).

4. An outlying surrounding region; a periphery: “Downtown Chicago and its penumbra also stand rejuvenated” (John McCormick).

352089[/snapback]

 

Thank you.

[John Adams]

Supremes by 6!-3 rule medicinal marijuana laws to be null. Behind virtually every dooby lurks a liberterian. Scream on if you like but this muddies the waters re: the upcoming replac ement of at least two Justices. Will liberals rediscover States Rights in the penumbra?

352057[/snapback]

 

Strange voting on that. Rehnquist and Thomas were in the dissent, with O'Connor. I haven't read the opinion yet, but states rights were killed off by Republicans and Democrats: their resurrection is highly unlikely.

[Reuben Gant]

I am not a pot user, but have seen pot help my loved ones with

chemotherapy when they had cancer.

 

The supreme court has now thrown this back to the lawmakers.

 

time to legalize it.

 

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050606/D8AI7BO80.html

[TheMadCap]

but...but...but...it's drugs!

 

It's not like we are talking about alcohol....

 

 

 

or cigarettes...

 

 

 

or asprin.....

 

 

or coffee....

 

 

 

or cialis.....

[CoachChuckDickerson]

When there is a pill I can take that will give me an extra inch let me know. Until then, I don't care about drugs.

[slothrop]

Edit: the penumbra part is  a reference to Roe in that Justice Douglas not having found  a Constitutional mention of abortion divined that the right to an abortion emanated from a penumbra of 9th amendment. Nearly 40 state Legislatures had already "liberalized" abortion statutes prior to Roe and a penumbra is not firm ground for a landmark decision. Yet Douglas et al could not wait. Such is the legacy of judicial activism.

Further beclouding the issue is that Scalia and Thomas differed. So much for a monolithic Court?

352057[/snapback]

 

Not to be a legal geek, but as a lawyer I must correct you. The "penumbra doctrine" was written by Douglas in Griswald v. Connecticut - not Roe v. Wade.

 

Also, read the decision and its progeny - the case is emblematic of the classic battle between strict contructionists like Scalia and "living Constitutionalists" like Douglas. The penumbra argument makes logical sense - i.e. certain enumerated rights (i.e. right to free association, speech, and religion) are impossible without certain unenumerated rights such as "right to privacy." Thus, it is simple logic that Americans enjoy a COnstitutional right to privacy.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Not to be a legal geek, but as a lawyer I must correct you.

352301[/snapback]

 

Don't let it keep you up. He's used to being corrected.

[beausox]

Not to be a legal geek, but as a lawyer I must correct you. The "penumbra doctrine" was written by Douglas in Griswald v. Connecticut - not Roe v. Wade.

 

Also, read the decision and its progeny - the case is emblematic of the classic battle between strict contructionists like Scalia and "living Constitutionalists" like Douglas. The penumbra argument makes logical sense - i.e. certain enumerated rights (i.e. right to free association, speech, and religion) are impossible without certain unenumerated rights such as "right to privacy." Thus, it is simple logic that Americans enjoy a COnstitutional right to privacy.

352301[/snapback]

Thank you for corrective info regarding Griswold which was a contraception case I believe. (Was it not used as a central precedent in Roe?)

There is however a lot of distance and appropriateness between bedroom acts between even among consulting adults and abortion which is non negotiated.

Few would dispute that citizens enjoy rights to privacy. It is however unique to abortion that the exercise of it concludes "life for the unborn".

Would it not be better that the" livng Constitutionalists "should populate the Legislatures and not the bench?

[/dev/null]

Well I don't know but I've been told, you never slow down, you never grow old.

I'm tired of screwin' up, tired of goin' down,

Tired of myself, tired of this town,

Oh my, my, oh hell yes - Honey put on that party dress.

Buy me a drink, sing me a song,

Take me as I come . cause I can't stay long.

 

Last dance with Mary Jane, one more time to kill the pain.

I feel summer creepin' in and I'm tired of this town again.

[slothrop]

Would it not be better that the" livng Constitutionalists "should populate the Legislatures and not the bench?

352337[/snapback]

 

Would it not be better for the strict constructionists be crusty old historians? This debate is as old as the Constitution - this is not a new argument made up by Delay.

 

JEfferson believed in a living constitution that would be rewitten be each generation. Others of the time believed as did Scalia. I believe that the "strict constructionist" point of view is contrary to common sense. Society and culture changes over time - that is simply a natural state of affairs. It is simply delusional to believe that we can maintain a single interpretation - i.e, the founders' intent - for over 200 years.

 

Also social circumstances change. For example, how can the view of the founders' be used to interpret how property law or copyright law applies to the internet? Also, strict constructionists would tell you that you do not have a guaranteed right to privacy because it was not an enumumerated right. To me, as it did Douglas, that flies in the face of logic.

[JimBob2232]

Do you guys read this stuff? Or do you just rely on a soundbite you pick up somewhere.

 

In case you cant find it...it is here

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...0&invol=03-1454

 

What they said is that marijuana is illegal on a federal level. States cannot override federal law. Therefore a state law legalizing medical marijuana is illegal.

 

Now, congress can ammend federal law if they so choose, and then states can legalize medical marijuana as they see fit. The court is okay with that.

 

This is NOT a states right issue. You could argue that illigalization (is that a word?) of marijuana at the federal level is a violation of states rights, but that is not what is at stake in this case. Facts are facts. Marijuana is illegal on the federal level. States can do nothing to legalize it if the federal government has already said it is illegal.

[Chilly]

Do you guys read this stuff?  Or do you just rely on a soundbite you pick up somewhere.

 

In case you cant find it...it is here

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...0&invol=03-1454

 

What they said is that marijuana is illegal on a federal level.  States cannot override federal law.  Therefore a state law legalizing medical marijuana is illegal.

 

Now, congress can ammend federal law if they so choose, and then states can legalize medical marijuana as they see fit.  The court is okay with that.

 

This is NOT a states right issue.  You could argue that illigalization (is that a word?) of marijuana at the federal level is a violation of states rights, but that is not what is at stake in this case.  Facts are facts.  Marijuana is illegal on the federal level.  States can do nothing to legalize it if the federal government has already said it is illegal.

352451[/snapback]

 

O dear, I find myself agreeing with you!

[Alaska Darin]

Do you guys read this stuff?  Or do you just rely on a soundbite you pick up somewhere.

 

In case you cant find it...it is here

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...0&invol=03-1454

 

What they said is that marijuana is illegal on a federal level.  States cannot override federal law.  Therefore a state law legalizing medical marijuana is illegal.

 

Now, congress can ammend federal law if they so choose, and then states can legalize medical marijuana as they see fit.  The court is okay with that.

 

This is NOT a states right issue.  You could argue that illigalization (is that a word?) of marijuana at the federal level is a violation of states rights, but that is not what is at stake in this case.  Facts are facts.  Marijuana is illegal on the federal level.  States can do nothing to legalize it if the federal government has already said it is illegal.

352451[/snapback]

Thank you.

[slothrop]

Do you guys read this stuff?  Or do you just rely on a soundbite you pick up somewhere.

 

In case you cant find it...it is here

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...0&invol=03-1454

 

What they said is that marijuana is illegal on a federal level.  States cannot override federal law.  Therefore a state law legalizing medical marijuana is illegal.

 

Now, congress can ammend federal law if they so choose, and then states can legalize medical marijuana as they see fit.  The court is okay with that.

 

This is NOT a states right issue.  You could argue that illigalization (is that a word?) of marijuana at the federal level is a violation of states rights, but that is not what is at stake in this case.  Facts are facts.  Marijuana is illegal on the federal level.  States can do nothing to legalize it if the federal government has already said it is illegal.

352451[/snapback]

 

What is interesting is that they distinguish this case from Lopez and Morrison (which I argued in a mock court in law school). Lopez was the seminal case in "modern commerce clause" jurisprudence that overturned over 60 years of cases stemming from Wickard v. Filburn. With the development of the "modern commerce clause" the 1964 Civil Rights ACt may not have passed if Congress had done so with this Court.

 

In this context it is interesting how the "Gun Free Zone Act" in Lopez and the "Violence Against Women Act" in Morrison do not pass Constitutional muster, yet the federal law prohibiting Marijuana does. On the face of it, under these line of cases, Congress was not empowered to enact that legislation. Is this Conservative activism at work?

[Pete]

the land of the free

[Wacka]

I've got a sore back- I need medical Marijuana.

 

It's gotten to that here in the SF area. Shady doctors will write "prescriptions" for a $20 bill. 99.9% of the people in these med. marajuana "clubs" are hippies looking for a high. Where are the published studies showing how well this "wonder drug"works?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Do you guys read this stuff?  Or do you just rely on a soundbite you pick up somewhere.

 

In case you cant find it...it is here

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...0&invol=03-1454

 

What they said is that marijuana is illegal on a federal level.  States cannot override federal law.  Therefore a state law legalizing medical marijuana is illegal.

 

Now, congress can ammend federal law if they so choose, and then states can legalize medical marijuana as they see fit.  The court is okay with that.

 

This is NOT a states right issue.  You could argue that illigalization (is that a word?) of marijuana at the federal level is a violation of states rights, but that is not what is at stake in this case.  Facts are facts.  Marijuana is illegal on the federal level.  States can do nothing to legalize it if the federal government has already said it is illegal.

352451[/snapback]

 

No, you must be wrong. It HAS to be activist liberal judges at work...

[Chilly]

No, you must be wrong.  It HAS to be activist liberal judges at work... 

352567[/snapback]

 

Respond to your PM damn you!