Federalism is now dead. It had been on lifesupport for quite sometime, and there had been indications it might recover to a degree, but now that non-economic activities, taking place wholely within one's property, and sanctioned by a state, can still be criminalized by the federal government, well, states are now just political subdivisions.

Ha. Of course, whether the right to regulate interstate commerce has the power to apply to the specifics of this case IS this whole case.

Scalia's opinion concurring in the judgment appears well-reasoned. There is a problem in this line of cases though, because people cannot predict what is going to cross the line raised in Lopez (guns in a school zone as a federal crime statute struck down) and Morrison (federal violence against women act struck down). Since marijuana seems like an obvious article that CAN be in commerce, 6 justices felt OK with the law.

Don't blame only the Supreme Court for today's decision -- also blame Nixon for getting these laws passed. Congress doesn't care a whit for passing laws that respect State sovereignty.

Federalism is not dead. It may be on life support. Three federalists sit on the Court. As long as Clarence Thomas is on the court, federalism will have a strong and clear voice.

*Sigh*

How depressing. Is there no one to vote for any more? The Democrats are open about their lack of concern for your individual rights, the Republicans aren't as open but just as bad. The Libertarians are too worried about smoking weed to concern themselves with reality and the Greens would be a good choice if they didn't concern themselves with space based mind control rays.

And none of my representatives give a shit about my opinion because I'm not a registered sheep of their party.

I think I'll turn off the internet now. All it does is remind me how powerless and stupid I am.

Locally grown and sold marijuana falls under Federal juridiction for the same reason locally made and sold beer falls under Federal jurisdiction. Where it's grown/produced/rolled/smoked isn't important: The fact that it CAN grow anywhere and CAN be transported anywhere, across state lines, gives the Federal government the right to tax it.

Back in the 30s when the Feds wanted to make pot illegal they asserted their right to tax it and then provided no way to apply for a tax stamp. You can't grow or import it anywhere in the US w/o a tax stamp, there's no way to get a tax stamp, ergo growing or importing pot anywhere in the US is illegal. Yeah, they could do this with any number of items grown or made in the US: most they "cede" to the authority of the states to some degree or another.

Is this sarcasm? "I eagerly await conservative cries of "where is the strict constructionism?" after this nifty ruling."

Because I have read several blogs today, and I can't say that too many conservatives aren't agreeing with the dissent, sure there are some.

But the real irony, is that the liberals can't look to their usual suspects to attack on this one, and it seems they may have been hoisted on their on petard with this case.

If this ruling puts Federalism on life support, its been there since 1942. This case was simply the application of the ludicrous decision of Wickard v. Filburn where the Supreme Court allowed FDR's destructive New Deal legislation to invade American's entire economic life.

Bill, how is upholding the Constitution's supremacy clause "judicial activism"?

Sure, one could argue that this is an anti-Federalist ruling. But judicial activism is another thing entirely.

The following contra-factual scenario would be judicial activism:

Suppose Federal law neither guaranteed nor constrained the ability of any citizen to obtain and possess marijuana, and/or that it imposed safety standards (limiting the amount of THC allowable, for instance, or requiring labeling, or imposing an age limit) that had to be respected in states that deciede to make it legal. Suppose 27 states had laws allowing the legal possession and use of marijuana, and 23 others criminalized it.

Justicial activism would be for the court to step in, usurping for itself the legislative branch's function, and declare that a "national consensus" had emerged that possession and use of pot was a civil right (perhaps also citing the laws of other countries where it is legal, which seems to be a disturbing new trend), and that laws against it ran contrary to "penumbras and emanations" of the right to privacy. If the court then, by fiat, declared that state laws forbidding the possession and use of marijuana were null and void, or that federal laws imposing safety standards were an undue burden, THAT would be judicial activism.

All the court has done in this decision is uphold the supremacy of the laws of the United States. One can obviously agree or disagree with this, but you shouldn't call it something it's not. It is certainly within the legitimate purview of the judicial branch to rule on such questions. It is not within the legitimate purview of the judicial branch to create new laws by fiat, however.

In this case, to rule otherwise would seem to allow states to set their own standards on what recreational OR pharmaceutical drugs could or could not be sold in the United States, which to me seems like opening Pandora's Box.

Note also that the court's decision does not forclose legislative remedies, in the way that rulings like Roe v. Wade do. If you think pot should be legal, you need to repeal the federal law against it by electing representatives that support its repeal. There is no such avenue available in cases of (real) judicial activism, because such rulings do not simply uphold existing law - they impose new meta-laws which are then declared completely off limits to the political process, and the voters.

The only reason to have states anymore is college football.

I concur that the federalism has been on life support since the days of FDR.

This was not a medicial marijuana case. It was a snake oil case. The question is does the federal goverment have the authority to regulate snake oil. Congress created the FDA to regulate snake oil. The need to regulate snake oil was obvious, and sadly should still be obvious, even in California.

Yet dispite the majority wishs and long standing ruling of the courts, a seemingly pressing need does not amount to constitutional federal authority. The federal government has never had the legal authority to regulate snake oil, even while retaining the fervent desire to so so.

Salute Clarence Thomas for recognizing that the federal empiror has no clothes. He alone among the sitting justices is fit to serve as chief justice. I hope he does.

Marijuana is snake oil?

Back up that assertion.

Hey LagunaDave, could you point me to the Article in the Constitution that instructs Supreme Court Justices to take "Pandora's Box" into account when they make a ruling.

If the CSA sucks and ruling in such a way opens Pandora's Box regarding just how much the CSA sucks - too bad. It sucks, deal with it.

>Hey LagunaDave, could you point me to the Article in the Constitution that instructs Supreme Court Justices to take "Pandora's Box" into account when they make a ruling.

That is a silly question. The Constitution contains no instructions whatsoever for what Supreme Court justices are to take into account when they make a ruling. By your argument, they are not allowed to consider anything at all when doing so.

The question is whether Federal regulation of drugs serves a compelling and legitimate interest of the people, and is consistent with the powers granted by the Constitution. It is obvious that unrestricted access to any potentially harmful substance a state may decide to permit could have harmful consequences beyond that state's boundaries. That makes its a legitimate area for Congress to regulate. There are plenty of explanations of the jurisprudence surrounding the commerce clause available on the web, so I won't repeat them here.

The question is whether Federal regulation of drugs serves a compelling and legitimate interest of the people, and is consistent with the powers granted by the Constitution. It is obvious that unrestricted access to any potentially harmful substance a state may decide to permit could have harmful consequences beyond that state's boundaries.

I love this crap. You'd argue that we needed strict enumeration of a given power in the Constitution for a different case.

Please outline the Constitutional powers that dictate authority as vague as wherever there is "a compelling and legitimate interest of the people." I'm all ears.

The whole idea of the Drug War is flawed; it's like passing a law saying you can't hit yourself in the head with a hammer. You simply cannot legislate stupid, self-destructive behavior out of existence.

They should spend all that money on education and prevention instead of interdiction and incarceration. We'd have less people on drugs, no rich drug dealers, and less civil war in South America.