comments_image -

The Sainted Clause

In the name of protecting the Commerce Clause, progressive politicians have been palpably unwilling to speak out against the Supreme Court's decision about medical marijuana.
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.

 
 
 
 

The most sobering aspect of the recent Supreme Court decision on medical marijuana was that it was essentially a decision made by progressives and, on the whole, supported by progressives. Don't they understand that this could not be a worse historical moment to grant the White House and Congress expanded authority to criminalize individual behavior?

The case hinged on whether the feds have the right to literally invade the backyards of two California women and arrest them for using homegrown marijuana even though their actions are legal in California. The Bush Administration argued that it does, because the Commerce Clause of the Constitution gives Congress the right to regulate "Commerce...among the several States."

For almost 70 years, progressives have used the interstate commerce clause to justify extending the federal reach. Since all commercial actions in modern economies involve interstate commerce, they argue, all commercial behavior is Constitutionally subject to federal jurisdiction. That is why Lester Maddox had to serve blacks at his family owned fried chicken restaurant. His supplies crossed state lines. The federal Civil Rights Act applied.

In the 1990s, the Supreme Court began to circumscribe the federal reach. In 1995, it overturned a 1990 federal law criminalizing the possession of guns near schools. The Court noted that possession in and of itself is not a commercial transaction and overturned "a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with 'commerce' or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly one might define those terms." The Court argued that the Constitution would not tolerate reasoning that would "convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States."

Later the Court relied on the same reasoning to overturn portions of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. That Act created a federal civil remedy for victims of gender-motivated violence. The Court concluded that this was not an economic activity.

In the medical marijuana case, the Supreme Court, by a 6-3 vote, ruled that these precedents were not determinative. Four liberal justices (Breyer, Ginsburg, Shouter and Stevens) were joined by two conservatives, Scalia and Kennedy.

While the possession of a gun is not in and of itself a commercial activity, the possession of marijuana is. Writing for the majority, Justice Stevens, at the outset, expressed his sympathy with the hundreds of thousands of people who "will suffer irreparable harm." The majority agreed that marijuana helped alleviate the defendants' excruciating pain as determined by their physicians. The majority agreed that the marijuana consumed was not purchased or sold and that all of the supplies used in growing it came from inside California. They also agreed that the citizens of California, by a wide margin, voted to approve the use of marijuana for medical purposes.

Yet they decided that in this instance, the federal will was determinative. While possession of a gun was not a commercial activity, possession of marijuana was. And although no part of the transactions involved crossed state lines, the impact of allowing people to grow their own medicine would inevitably undermine Congress' desire to stop them from doing so.

Sandra Day O'Connor, who had voted with the majority to restrict the right of the federal government to implement the Violence Against Women Act, spoke out vigorously against the majority's refusal to follow its own precedent. She noted that Court was establishing a very dangerous precedent. It was creating a federal police power. The right to criminalize behavior has traditionally rested with the states.

As O'Connor noted, "The States' core police powers have always included authority to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens."

submit to reddit

-
Email
Print
Share
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Alternet Special Coverage - Occupy Wall Street
Advertisement
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading most read content ..
Advertisement
Occupy Protesters Mic-Check Palin During CPAC Speech

By Adele M. Stan | AlterNet

 
 
Apple, Accustomed to Profits and Praise, Faces Outcry for Labor Practices at Chinese Factories

By Amy Goodman, Juan Gonzalez | Democracy Now!

 
 
Could Santorum Actually Beat Romney? And Would the Obama Campaign be Ready?

By Steve M. | Booman Tribune

 
 
Bill Moyers: The Economy Has Been Engineered to Screw Over Millennials (With an AlterNet Shoutout!)

By Staff | AlterNet

 
 
Maher: Conservatives Are the Ones Dividing the Country

By Sarah Seltzer | AlterNet

 
 
In Kansas, Is Catholic Church Trying to Destroy A Victim's Advocates Organization?

By Julie Cain | Ms. Magazine Blog

 
 
Obama vs. the Concern Trolls on Nonsense "Religious Liberty" Issue

By Digby | Hullabaloo

 
 
At CPAC, Santorum Surges Despite Idiotic Claims; Romney Poses as 'Severe' Conservative; Gingrich Makes War on GOP

By Adele M. Stan | AlterNet

 
 
Wisconsin's Gov. Walker Appeals to CPAC Crowd for Help Fending Off Recall

By Adele M. Stan | AlterNet

 
 
In Birth Control Debate, Cable News Disproportionately Asked Men What They Thought of Women's Health

By Faiz Shakir and Adam Peck | Think Progress

 
 
 
Reverend Billy Talen
 
 
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS
 
[ page served from web 1 ]