Skip to main content

View Diary: Got An Answer on Legalized Marijuana, Mr. Holder? (31 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  As an ex-attorney, you should know that it (0+ / 0-)

    doesn't make a bit of difference whether you are skeptical about their decisions or not - any more than it makes any difference whether or not some people still think the ACA is unconstitutional. They are still the law of the land whether you (or anyone else) approves until another SC decision changes it.

    As a matter of fact, Gongalez v Raich was based on Wickard v Filburn (1942) and the Chief Justice in that case was Harland Stone. And in that decision they stated

    "At the beginning Chief Justice Marshall described the Federal commerce power with a breadth never yet exceeded. He made emphatic the embracing and penetrating nature of this power by warning that effective restraints on its exercise must proceed from political rather than from judicial processes."
    So the commerce clause has been recognized from the beginning as a strong federal power. It was practically unchallenged until US v Lopez in 1995 which for some strange reason decided handgun regulation exceeded the power of Congress under the commerce clause and later in 2000 in US v Morrison decided the Violence against Women Act exceeded Congress's power.

    You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

    by sewaneepat on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 04:38:16 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (141)
  • Community (69)
  • Bernie Sanders (49)
  • Elections (37)
  • 2016 (31)
  • Hillary Clinton (30)
  • Climate Change (30)
  • Culture (29)
  • Environment (29)
  • Science (27)
  • Civil Rights (25)
  • Barack Obama (21)
  • Media (21)
  • Republicans (21)
  • Law (20)
  • Labor (19)
  • Spam (18)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (18)
  • International (15)
  • White House (15)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site