The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Can the Federal Government Legalize Marijuana?
Poast new message in this thread
Date: May 8th, 2006 4:39 AM Author: concupiscible chartreuse trailer park Can it? You tell me. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5740552) |
 |
Date: May 8th, 2006 4:40 AM Author: Fear-inspiring Tanning Salon How about you explain why it can't. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5740555) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 4:40 AM Author: concupiscible chartreuse trailer park I'll give you my analysis after some people answer a simple yes or no. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5740560) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 4:46 AM Author: Fear-inspiring Tanning Salon OK, so? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5740590) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 4:40 AM Author: Zippy grizzly base Only if ibankers tell them to. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5740557) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 4:40 AM Author: Beady-eyed cyan party of the first part son of senegal 171. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5740559) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 9:44 PM Author: Flickering Senate Bbw i actually laughed at this one. nice D (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5745365) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2006 3:27 AM Author: Irradiated juggernaut 178 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#6065905) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 4:41 AM Author: Razzle-dazzle Brilliant Organic Girlfriend Native Sure.
They can get an amendment to the Constitution that mandates legality.
They can also pull on funding strings to coerce states into doing it, which would be the equivalent of the feds legalizing pot. |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 4:42 AM Author: concupiscible chartreuse trailer park The federal government cannot get an amendment on their own. They need the states to help out. Can the federal government do it on its own? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5740572) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 4:44 AM Author: Razzle-dazzle Brilliant Organic Girlfriend Native "Can the federal government do it on its own?"
I suppose the president and Congress could pack the courts such that an interpretation arises that would permit it.
And beating the states with highway funding or something like that would be de facto legalization. |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 4:42 AM Author: Fear-inspiring Tanning Salon But this is more than just Congress and the feds, this must necessarily include the states. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5740573) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 4:47 AM Author: Razzle-dazzle Brilliant Organic Girlfriend Native That's true for the amendment process, but the coercion case is closer I think. That would require a debate about what it means to "choose." I don't want to play that game right now. I have to study. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5740596) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 4:48 AM Author: Fear-inspiring Tanning Salon True. But I think they could probably get away with it as long as the record showed how the legislation effected interstate commerce. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5740599) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 4:50 AM Author: milky flirting center i'm still wondering why ipgunnerfaggot thinks the government never, ever in a millions could legalize doobies (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5740605) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 4:51 AM Author: Fear-inspiring Tanning Salon There are billion different commerce clause rationales. Under the "cumulative effect" reasoning they can pretty much do whatever they want. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5740611) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 4:41 AM Author: Beady-eyed cyan party of the first part son of senegal Something about Raich. Or something. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5740566) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 7:46 PM Author: primrose really tough guy heaven raich is a commerce clause case i thought? something about being able to reach purely intrastate activities through the commerce clause do to aggregate effects? i could be totally off though. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5744451) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 9:55 PM Author: bisexual headpube useless brakes One could imagine a reverse-Raich, where the feds made it illegal to intefere with the commercial transaction of marijuana. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5745463) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:58 PM Author: Pink fluffy step-uncle's house I'm not sure what you mean, though I do know what a Raich around is (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5745868) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 4:42 AM Author: milky flirting center i'm pretty sure they could. especially if the jewish lobby thinks there's some way to make money off it (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5740574) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 4:43 AM Author: Fear-inspiring Tanning Salon Yes, they can. Maybe the Court would finally get a backbone, but I doubt it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5740576) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 4:44 AM Author: Fear-inspiring Tanning Salon All that Congress has to do is make some transparently fallacious commerce clause rationalization. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5740579) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 4:57 AM Author: soul-stirring crystalline tattoo This sounds right. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5740624) |
Date: May 8th, 2006 4:44 AM Author: concupiscible chartreuse trailer park Nice to see so many people have the guts to answer. Maybe it will give Charles Murray the courage to join in. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5740581) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 4:46 AM Author: milky flirting center i still don't get it. the fact that he didn't answer your question (it seems like your answer isn't right, by the way), means you pwn3d him? there has to be some sort of xoxo policy against your type of stupidity (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5740592) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 4:49 AM Author: Fear-inspiring Tanning Salon Now he won't answer my question!!! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5740603) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 4:57 AM Author: soul-stirring crystalline tattoo We really should update the Board Charter. It hasn't been touched since the Great War. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5740626) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 5:10 AM Author: milky flirting center you're right; it is time. it appears that the TTTs have mounted an insurrection (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5740652) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 4:10 PM Author: mint adventurous piazza EVERYBODY (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5743070) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 4:10 PM Author: Multi-colored hall dopamine DANCE (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5743074) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 4:11 PM Author: mint adventurous piazza NOW (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5743079) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 4:12 PM Author: Multi-colored hall dopamine I totally agree. 180 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5743085) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 4:14 PM Author: mint adventurous piazza 180 to you, too. You're the best poster ever. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5743100) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 4:17 PM Author: Multi-colored hall dopamine ty (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5743110) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 5:03 AM Author: Fear-inspiring Tanning Salon So, IPgunner pwn3d Charles Murray because Murray refused to answer a question. Yet, on this very thread IPgunner has vanished when asked why he think the feds can't legalize weed. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5740642) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 5:10 AM Author: milky flirting center HAHAHAHHAHAH nice (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5740650) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 2:16 PM Author: concupiscible chartreuse trailer park See below. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5742347) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 1:49 PM Author: concupiscible chartreuse trailer park The federal government cannot legalize marijuana. They can't legalize it for the same reason that they can't legalize alcohol, tattoo parlors, pit bulls, dancing, and cigarette rolling papers - those are matters of state police powers, and each of those things is illegal somewhere in the US. The states get to decide what is and isn't legal within the scope of their powers under the tenth amendment.
In principle, there could be a constitutional amendment such that marijuana is legal and that no state shall give effect to any law making it illegal, but the federal government can't do that without state ratification. IE, the federal government can't do it.
The federal government couldn't compel the states to make it legal via the federal governement's spending powers either. They can't do it because in order to use the spending power, there has to be some demonstrated nexus between the spending and the sought-for state law. IE the federal government can make federal highway funds contingent on a 21 drinking age because there is a nexus between alcohol use and the federal interstate highways (ie young people drive across states lines where it is legal and then drive back home drunk, endagering other drivers etc. There was a SCOTUS case on this.) Also, even if it could, the states would still have to be on board. But like it said, it can't.
There might be ONE way marijuana could be made legal, but it would require a lot more than passing a statute, and has no precedent. Even then I'm not sure it would work. I merely offer it as an intellectual exercise for you to try to find it for extra credit.
Thanks to everyone who responded!
PS Charles Murray - you're still a coward.
|
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 1:54 PM Author: milky flirting center hi, stonewall jackson. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5742220) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 1:57 PM Author: concupiscible chartreuse trailer park Everyone already knows that YOU are SJ, but nice try. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5742242) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 2:20 PM Author: Confused sneaky criminal "some demonstrated nexus"
I thought we didn't believe in this nexus nonsense any more. |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 2:33 PM Author: concupiscible chartreuse trailer park That's news to me. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5742454) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 2:41 PM Author: Razzle-dazzle Brilliant Organic Girlfriend Native Marijuana reduces road rage + rational basis = pass the pipe. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5742499) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 6:55 PM Author: bateful mildly autistic temple "They can't do it because in order to use the spending power, there has to be some demonstrated nexus between the spending and the sought-for state law. IE the federal government can make federal highway funds contingent on a 21 drinking age because there is a nexus between alcohol use and the federal interstate highways (ie young people drive across states lines where it is legal and then drive back home drunk, endagering other drivers etc. There was a SCOTUS case on this.) Also, even if it could, the states would still have to be on board. But like it said, it can't."
Couldn't the Congress rely on medical marijana laws already in place in several states? The nexus would be inefficiency caused by non-uniform treatment of MJ among the states. |
|
Date: May 9th, 2006 12:12 AM Author: milky flirting center the only thing wrong with this analysis is the fact that it speaks in absolute terms (congress "can't," the federal government "couldn't"). that's not right, if only because you have absolutely no authority to say so. you don't know what congress can and can't do, especially when it comes to unclear areas like commerce clause law, even if the con law profs at your TTT told you differently. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5746453) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 3:38 PM Author: concupiscible chartreuse trailer park BUMP
So that I prolong the enjoyment of PWNING you all! |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 3:49 PM Author: twisted principal's office boistinker Commerce power, obviously
Also, don't forget the spending power
And treaty power (treaty with Mexico that includes importing marijuana. allowing states to criminalize marijuana frustrates this foreign relations goal, thus, they may not). |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 3:54 PM Author: twisted principal's office boistinker TREATYPOWERPWN3D! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5742998) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 3:59 PM Author: concupiscible chartreuse trailer park LOL
The federal government needs to have another state actor involved to use the treaty power.
Also, the treaty power is STILL subject to the rest of the constitution (ie the 10th amendment.) IE you can't use the treaty power to make it legal to execute juveniles.
Why not just say 'constitutional amendment?' again, that requires more than just the federal govt.
Again, what can the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT do? |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 4:00 PM Author: twisted principal's office boistinker Like I said, treaty with Meixco (10th Amendment is meaningless in foreign relations, go read up on the treaty power)
MISSOURI v. HOLLAND clearly holds that state sovereignty and the 10th amendment DO NOT restrict the treaty power |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 4:03 PM Author: concupiscible chartreuse trailer park You're totally wrong about that. It is true that the SCOTUS has stretched the 10th amendment a bit (ie the migratory birds case, Holmes opinion if I'm not mistaken.)
In any case, that is irrelevant, because as I said the federal government needs to get another country involved to use the treaty power. |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 4:05 PM Author: twisted principal's office boistinker Under CURTISS-WRIGHT the president has "broad inherent autohirty" over foreign relations. Even under DAMES & MOORE a sole executive order, even with no other country involved can be Constitutional to the extent it enforces a foreign affairs purpose.
And as I have said, if there is a real treaty, the 10th Amendment is rendered meaningless. So what if another state actor is involved? Is generating a treaty that much more difficult that generating a law? Of course not. Plenty of drug producing countries would be willing to produce and sell it to us if we were willing to buy it.
As I said, TREATYPOWERPWN3D |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 4:10 PM Author: concupiscible chartreuse trailer park Generating a treaty involves another country - treaties cannot be entered into that do not include another coutry.
The legality of marijuana INSIDE the US is not a part of the president's 'broad inherent authority' over FOREIGN RELATIONS.
What foreign affairs purpose is served by legalizing marijuana in the US?
Why didn't Clinton just execute an executive order legalizing abortion?
You are misinterpreting the executives foreign affairs power. |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 4:14 PM Author: Useless hairraiser library you're claiming that Missouri v. Holland and Dames & Moore were wrongly decided? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5743098) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 4:16 PM Author: concupiscible chartreuse trailer park No, I'm saying that you are citing them incorrectly. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5743109) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 4:22 PM Author: Useless hairraiser library Missouri v Holland ruled that a treaty that did the exact same thing as an unconstitutional statute (unconstitutional because it interfered with the state's powers) was constitutional. why is this inapplicable? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5743140) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 4:16 PM Author: twisted principal's office boistinker How COULD the Federal government legalize marijuna? That is the question you asked. I gave you an answer. If you want to add this absurd limitation that it can't involve another state actor, I gave you another alternative - executive order.
I don't have time to explain how the DRUG TRADE AFFECTS FORIEGN RELATIONS, but use your imagination. |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 4:19 PM Author: concupiscible chartreuse trailer park If you read carefully, you will see that the question was NOT 'COULD' it, but rather 'CAN' it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5743124) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 4:22 PM Author: twisted principal's office boistinker How CAN the Federal government legalize marijuna? That is the question you asked. I gave you an answer. If you want to add this absurd limitation that it can't involve another state actor, I gave you another alternative - executive order.
I don't have time to explain how the DRUG TRADE AFFECTS FORIEGN RELATIONS, but use your imagination. |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 4:15 PM Author: concupiscible chartreuse trailer park And again, a treaty with mexico would involve another state actor.
You are very wrong that the treaty power nullifies the 10th amendment - in many cases we can't enter treaties because the federal government has no means to coerce the states to comply. Sometimes we enter them with disclaimers that we are not bound by certain provisions, because we can't comply with them, because the federal government can't force the states to comply. |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 4:30 PM Author: twisted principal's office boistinker "...and that but for the treaty the State would be free to regulate this subject by itself"
"No doubt the great body of private relations fall within the control of the State, but a treaty may override its power"
"It is not sufficient to rely upon the States. The reliance is vain, and were it otherwise, the question is whether the United States is forbidden to act. We are of the opinion that the treaty and statute must be upheld."
JUSTICEHOLMESPWN3D |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 3:55 PM Author: concupiscible chartreuse trailer park Already addressed spending power - has to be nexus between the law and the federal funds. How exactly do you do it?
commerce power - definitely not. How can the government make something LEGAL via the commerce power?
To make it legal, it would have to have the power to override state laws making it illegal. Explain how they could do that using the commerce power or spending power. |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 3:59 PM Author: twisted principal's office boistinker Commerce power argument (the presence of a black market frustrates interstate commerce - clearly 'concerns' economic activity under LOPEZ and MORRISON)
Spending power argument (criminalizing marijuna leads to more crime and diverts resources from important national security objectives, thus if you dont decriminalize it, we restrict law enforcement funding)
Treat power (see above) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 4:13 PM Author: concupiscible chartreuse trailer park Explain how the commerce clause can be used to make some article of commerce legal (ie marijuana.) Feel free to draw an analogy to any other article of commerce that has been made legal this way.
I've addressed the spending power below. |
|
Date: June 25th, 2006 1:07 AM Author: Lascivious ruby house boiling water Gibbons v. Ogden you stupid nutcase (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#6064821) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 4:01 PM Author: Useless hairraiser library wtf? are you saying that alcohol isn't legal because a few places in the US are dry? actually as far as I know even in dry places the only thing forbidden is the sale of alcohol not the possession
they don't even need an amendment to make it legal; they can do it by statute the same way they made it illegal |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 4:07 PM Author: concupiscible chartreuse trailer park No, they can't make it legal by simply passing a statute, that is the whole point. The states can say it is illegal via their powers under the 10th amendment.
I'm saying the federal government can't MAKE it legal - even if they could pass a statute legalizing it (which they can't), they would not be able to coerce the states to make it legal.
The fed. govt. cant MAKE alcohol legal either - if a state wants to outlaw it, that is their choice. |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 4:12 PM Author: Useless hairraiser library so you're saying that Reich was wrongly decided and that the federal government does not in fact have the power to regulate marijuana or alcohol. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5743088) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 4:18 PM Author: concupiscible chartreuse trailer park The federal government most definitely has the authority to regulate both. That is not the same thing as having the power to make them LEGAL. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5743116) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 4:22 PM Author: Useless hairraiser library so it can make them illegal but it cant make them legal. ok then (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5743143) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 4:22 PM Author: dead indigo bawdyhouse toilet seat "commerce power - definitely not. How can the government make something LEGAL via the commerce power?" Why not? Making pot legal everywhere -- and preempting any state or local laws to the contrary -- sure as hell would impact interstate commerce. How could this possibly not pass muster? Is there any case law saying that Congress doesn't have the CC power to regulate something by legalizing it, rather than criminalizing it? |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 7:48 PM Author: Sepia stag film Congress funds a study saying people drive slower when they're high. Instant nexus. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5744472) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 9:53 PM Author: bisexual headpube useless brakes South Dakota doesn't have THAT much bite. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5745446) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 4:13 PM Author: twisted principal's office boistinker And last but not least, insofar as the Supreme Court is part of the Federal government, they can recognize a fundamental right to use marijuna.
SUBSTANTIVEDUEPROCESSPWN3D |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 4:32 PM Author: twisted principal's office boistinker For those of you keeping score, we have:
1) Treaty power (or even executive order) 2) Spending power (restrict law enforcement funding unless states legalize marijuana) 3) Substantive due process
|
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 4:43 PM Author: twisted principal's office boistinker Sir, I demand satisfaction (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5743265) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 4:54 PM Author: twisted principal's office boistinker This is shameful, IP. You can't start this thread and not finish it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5743351) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 5:10 PM Author: twisted principal's office boistinker At least address the substantive due process route. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5743446) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 7:07 PM Author: twisted principal's office boistinker IPGunner, do you have the "courage" (your phrase) to answer this thread? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5744159) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 7:11 PM Author: bateful mildly autistic temple agreed. this guy is an idiot. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5744190) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 7:30 PM Author: dark property With threads like this, is it even possible IPGunner is not schtick? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5744334) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 7:35 PM Author: twisted principal's office boistinker He's not schtick. He has his share of intelligible posts. But he just needs to admit he got destroyed on this one. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5744367) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 7:43 PM Author: dark property Time will tell if he's not really schtick.
It is pretty funny he won't come back and admit he got PWNED here, but to each his own. |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 8:14 PM Author: twisted principal's office boistinker IP, you post here 24/7 but suddenly vanish when you get PWN3D? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5744644) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 9:41 PM Author: concupiscible chartreuse trailer park Ok, I'm back. Sheesh you guys are impatient. Some of us do have a life you know.
First of all let's get one thing straight:
If I say to you 'can Screech bench press 400 pounds', what do I mean?
I don't mean 'can he bench press 400 pounds if he can get help from unlimited other people.'
I don't mean 'can he bench press 400 pounds if he first lobbys to make it so a 'pound' weighs one gram.
I don't mean 'can he bench press 400 pounds if the laws of the universe change.'
What I DO mean is - CAN HE BENCH PRESS 400 POUNDS.
It is the same thing when I ask 'can the federal government legalize marijuana.'
I DON'T mean - can .... if they get the states to go along with a constitutional amendment.
I DONT mean - can .... if they convince all the states to just scrap all their laws making marijuana illegal'
I DONT mean can .... if they create a mind control device and make all of the state governments stop enforcing their marijuana laws.
Do you people do this in law school exams? If the question is
The supreme court interprets the constitution to read that it is illegal for any US citizen, in the US or abroad, to use torture against enemy combatants. The president wants to keep doing it. Can he? Provide analysis.
Do you then answer the question by saying 'the president can get congress to go along with a court packing plan to stock the SCOTUS with justices who will overrule that decision, or
the president could use the CIA to blackmail SCOTUS justices to get them to decide differently next time, or
the president could pay Bangladesh one billion dollars in exchange for entering into a treaty with the US making it legal to torture enemy combatants.
Do you?
If you answer exam questions this way, you are truly NOT prestigious.
|
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 9:44 PM Author: twisted principal's office boistinker The Supreme Court CAN recognize a fundamental right to smoke marijuna. END OF A+ ESSAY (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5745367) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 9:51 PM Author: concupiscible chartreuse trailer park Ok make a case that there is a fundamental right to smoke marijuana.
Can you make a case that there is a fundamental right to rape chickens? Or to rob banks? Or to boil your neighbor alive in battery acid? |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 9:54 PM Author: twisted principal's office boistinker Or abort a fetus? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5745455) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 9:57 PM Author: bisexual headpube useless brakes Unlike your hypos, marijuana has at least some connection to bodily autonomy. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5745483) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 9:46 PM Author: laughsome sadistic theatre You blew it on the commerce clause point. Under Raich the government is entitled to comprehensively regulate marijuana--to render its legal status whatever it pleases. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5745379) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 9:49 PM Author: Flickering Senate Bbw is that true? I though Raich just said they could regulate it as criminal activity, even though criminal law is traditionally a purely state interest. I don't think Stevens was saying that the feds can force states to make it legal, though.
this is more of a dormant commerce clause question... |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 9:59 PM Author: laughsome sadistic theatre OK I overstated Raich. But I still think that the commerce clause would allow Congress to pass a bill legalizing marijuana. They could for example, federalize the sale of it, and provide outlets in every state, all through the commerce power. If a state tried to stop it, they would be Supremacypwn3d. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5745489) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:04 PM Author: Flickering Senate Bbw yea, I think the other side on the exam would go something like this:
But, one could argue that making certain activities illegal remains a soveriegn state interest which the federal government can't intefere with. Regulating federal criminal activity, as was allowed in Raich, seems very different from mandating that certain activity must be legal. for example, assuming roe v. wade is overturned, if congress passed a bill saying that abortion must be legal and cannot be made illegal, it is probable that the Supreme Court would reference the Lopez and Morrison cases, and view this as an interference with a body of law, criminal law, that is normally left to the states. The marijuania question could go either way, depending on who is on the court. |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:11 PM Author: laughsome sadistic theatre You are quite the federalist optimist--the commerce clause is vastly expansive with those two exceptions. I'm sure four justices see it your way, but I bet Kennedy would be on my team. Also, the economic impact of illegal marijuana is massive--the government has a very strong, economically-rooted argument for a national legalization--to destroy the federal cartel and support the existing scheme of federal drug enforcement. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5745560) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:19 PM Author: Flickering Senate Bbw there are also very good reasons why violence against women is a bad thing, but Morrison knocked that down, didn't it? Whats the distinction, one is economic but the other isn't? Anyway, the question is can the gov't make the activity LEGAL - not illegal. So I'm not sure the gov't interest is as strong there. Guns in school zones seems pretty bad too, you know, but Lopez shot down those extra penalties. You can't just say "but its REALLY BAD!" that doesn't work with scalia / thomas and now I assume roberts / alito.
Dood, I don't neccessarily disagree with your policy, but if Stevens dies and GWB puts Edith Jones or luttig on in his place, the law would get knocked down in a heart beat. |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:23 PM Author: laughsome sadistic theatre Scalia is the one who came up with this nutty "economic" shit in Lopez. In that case the gun law went down because it was not economic. The reason behind legalizing marijuana is substantial and economic. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5745645) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:27 PM Author: Flickering Senate Bbw I know, and he had a pretty interesting concurring opinion in Raich. But I'm pretty sure he'd be against a federal law making marijuina legal, just like he'd be against a federal law making abortion legal. I do think they would distinguish between making things illegal and madating that something is legal.
What about the Oregon assisted sucide case? Sure, he said (in dissent) that states couldn't make assisted sucide legal, some bullshit about history or whatever the fuck, but that history crap wouldn't apply to pot. |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:30 PM Author: laughsome sadistic theatre Arg, I'm trying to forget all the conlaw I know so I can make room for other useless shit. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5745684) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:31 PM Author: Flickering Senate Bbw Here's my take - all the doctrine is complete bullshit. The justices decide issues on political grounds. Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito will never let a legalizing pot law stand, ever. They'll make shit up if they have to. If they get Luttig on there too, watch out. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5745693) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:04 PM Author: concupiscible chartreuse trailer park regulate does not mean legalize.
The federal government has never 'legalized' alcohol. It regulates it, but states are completely free to make it illegal if they want to. And in fact, some areas do. |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:13 PM Author: laughsome sadistic theatre That's just the status quo. Congress has the power under the commerce clause to federalize liquor sales. Then Utah would be pwn3d. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5745574) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:21 PM Author: Flickering Senate Bbw and then Chief Justice John Roberts would pwn congress. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5745629) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:31 PM Author: concupiscible chartreuse trailer park But the states could still make it illegal. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5745691) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:33 PM Author: laughsome sadistic theatre False. If we suppose that federalized liquor sales gets by commerce challenge (I'll admit, it's not a slam dunk with today's court), state laws trying to interfere, limit, or otherwise fuck with the national sales program would be struck down under supremacy. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5745704) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:37 PM Author: Flickering Senate Bbw Maybe 15 years ago, but I don't think you can just wipe away Lopez / Morrison by saying "Supremacy!" I'm not sure liquor sales would count as a traditional state area, though... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5745719) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:40 PM Author: laughsome sadistic theatre Damnit, I'll say SUPREMACY! If I want to. SUPREMACY SUPREMACY SUPREMACY SUPREMACY. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5745734) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:42 PM Author: Flickering Senate Bbw STATES RIGHTS! FEDERALISM! FUNDAMENTAL STATE INTEREST, except for suicide, cause that's just bad.
RIGHTWINGCR4ZI#SONSCOTUSPWN#D!!!1 |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:47 PM Author: pearl hell Of course, Lopez and Morrison have nothing to do with supremacy and everything to do with the scope of the commerce power. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5745775) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:49 PM Author: Flickering Senate Bbw yea, but we're talking basically about a commerce power question. Would congress be able to pass the law at all? If its an invalid law, then it can't be supreme. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5745793) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:47 PM Author: concupiscible chartreuse trailer park You seem to think that the supremacy clause means that the federal government can do whatever it wants and it will supercede state law, but you are very wrong.
It will supercede state law if it CAN supercede it - after scrutiny under the 10th amendment. |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:50 PM Author: laughsome sadistic theatre Once something is properly authorized under spending or commerce, there IS no more 10th amendment consideration. From there it's just preemption analysis under supremacy. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5745799) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:54 PM Author: Flickering Senate Bbw if a law is valid under the commerce clause, yes, that's basically the end of the discussion. I can't remember a case where the 10th amendment was even relevant... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5745830) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:59 PM Author: Pale Mischievous Point Sandwich we both had the same thought at the same time, see below (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5745877) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:55 PM Author: concupiscible chartreuse trailer park Problem is, there is no way to make marijunana legal (ie prevent the states from making it illegal) under either the commerce clause or the spending power. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5745837) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 11:01 PM Author: laughsome sadistic theatre "No way" is an exaggeration. There is a very plausible argument. At least four justices might agree with you. At least four might agree with me. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5745884) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 11:02 PM Author: concupiscible chartreuse trailer park Then tell me how it is to be done then. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5745897) |
|
Date: May 9th, 2006 9:14 AM Author: laughsome sadistic theatre Read the discussion between me and WhateverDood--that's what we've been talking about. We've established that there is a colorable argument under commerce, but if you think Morrison/Lopez are the "new trend," that argument may be losing its color. Although, I do think that Scalia's "economic" classification scheme would work in favor of marijuana legalization. WhateverDood's point that the conservatives on the court will do whatever legal contortions they must to strike down marijuana legalization is probably valid, but as long as we have Stevens, I still think it would work. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5748233) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:58 PM Author: Pale Mischievous Point Sandwich hanging this whole argument on the 10th amendment seems fishy to me. It is hardly ever gets mentioned in federal court cases. In fact, I never remember discussing it in conlaw, civ pro, federal criminal law, or fed courts. So if that is all IPgunner has going for him, it's not much |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 11:01 PM Author: Flickering Senate Bbw someone quoted Darby below - 10th amendment is a mere truism. I think that is pretty spot on. Its like the 9th amendment - the only time i remember anyone citing it was Blackmun in Roe. If all you have is some 9th or 10th amendment claim, you are going to lose. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5745889) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 11:04 PM Author: Pale Mischievous Point Sandwich which is really too bad, it seems like those clauses could have been used to good effect before they got relegated to the scrap heap of constitutional law. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5745903) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 11:11 PM Author: Flickering Senate Bbw i think the problem is that they are so vague. Kinda the lochner / fundamental rights problem. So yea, individuals have rights. But what rights? States have inherent powers... ok... but which ones? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5745955) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 11:17 PM Author: Pale Mischievous Point Sandwich right, but my point is that if they had been used as arguments by states early in the history of the republic, maybe the 10th would have been better defined by now. nevertheless, it's a moot point, as they mean almost nothing currently. |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 11:19 PM Author: Flickering Senate Bbw Yea, the early states probably didn't respect the s.ct.
Kinda like the 13th. You gotta think that was supposed to mean a lot more than it has come to mean. |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 9:59 PM Author: concupiscible chartreuse trailer park Raich does not say that the govt can make it LEGAL. It can make it ILLEGAL, and it can REGULATE it, but it can't make it LEGAL. What part of the case are you referring to? Quote it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5745493) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:02 PM Author: laughsome sadistic theatre See above, but speaking abstractly regulation of it would preempt any state law criminalizing it, would it not? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5745511) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:07 PM Author: twisted principal's office boistinker Absolutely, think about the state laws that prevented unionizing, etc. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5745542) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 9:48 PM Author: concupiscible chartreuse trailer park Now I will address this:
For those of you keeping score, we have:
1) Treaty power (or even executive order)
2) Spending power (restrict law enforcement funding unless states legalize marijuana)
3) Substantive due process .
1) The treaty power requires that another country be involved. The US cannot enter use the treaty power unilaterally as a backdoor to create law.
2) To use the spending power, the government must show that it has an interest in the underlying law (ie legalizing marijunana) that has a nexus with the spending (ie federal highway funds.)
3) There is no colorable argument that there is a substantive due process right to use marijuana. If you can make one out, please do. |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 9:50 PM Author: twisted principal's office boistinker There is as much of a colorable argument as there is for a fundamental right to abortion. END OF A+ REBUTAL (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5745414) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 9:52 PM Author: twisted principal's office boistinker I laid out the spending power argument. There is plenty of evidence that criminalization of marijuana increases violent crime. The government could make a policy argument to permit this drug use and devote law enforce resources to more important areas. The federal government could withhold law enforcement and homeland security funding on this basis. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5745443) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:06 PM Author: twisted principal's office boistinker Your endless qualifications are absurd. 50 years ago I'm not sure any legitimate Constitutional scholar would have argued that a woman has a fundamental right to abortion. Yet we have ROE. Do I think it is likely that the Court would find a fundamental right to marijuana? No.
CAN they? Absolutely, if a majority of justices followed the logic of ROE, GRISWOLD, etc. You would simply define the right as a fundamental right to eat, drink, or smoke mind altering substances in a peaceful manner. This is not all that far fetched. |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:07 PM Author: pearl hell You're unbelievably dumb. As others have pointed out, the commerce power is all Congress needs to legalize marijuana. The power to regulate commerce isn't restricted to the power to ban certain items in commerce. Indeed, the whole idea of the dormant-commerce clause is that state's can't take certain steps to restrict commerce because there is a background presumption (without Congress even needing to say anything) that commerce is to affirmatively flow freely. A fortiori, Congress can expressly say that no state will make marijuana illegal.
Thanks for playing. |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:13 PM Author: concupiscible chartreuse trailer park The only problem is that you need to come up with an argument that marijunana would qualify under the dormant commerce clause, and if you understand the dormant commerce clause, you would realize this is impossible.
Alcohol doesn't come under the dormant commerce clause, just to give you a head start in crafting your answer. |
|
Date: May 9th, 2006 9:49 AM Author: marvelous wild range elastic band This is right. Fshek is confusing the power to regulate under the commerce clause with the power to restrict state regulation under the dormant commerce clause. Two different, if related, concepts. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5748333) |
|
Date: May 9th, 2006 9:55 AM Author: laughsome sadistic theatre The point repeatedly made in this thread is that Congress might be able to legalize MJ through the commerce clause--forget the dormant commerce clause, that's not necessary. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5748360) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:13 PM Author: twisted principal's office boistinker Also, please address my spending power arguement as I have defined it, not as you imagine it.
1) Prevention of violent crime = important state interest 2) Congress produces a great deal of findings that there is a link between the criminalization of marijuna and violent crime. 3) Congress withholds law enforcement and homeland security funds on this basis = nexus
|
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:28 PM Author: concupiscible chartreuse trailer park *sigh*
First of all, the nexus has to be between the spending and the influence on state law that is sought. Raising age limit for alcohol lowers highway fatalities because underage drinkers cross state lines to drink, and then drive back.
So you are saying that making MJ illegal creates more crime than would exist if it were legal.
First, the crimes involved in the actual drug offenses don't count. That is an integration problem. That's like saying we could reduce crime by making murder legal.
Next, you actually have to produce such a study that would show that, if MJ were made legal, there would be less crime than there would be if it were illegal. And here I'm talking about non drug related offenses again, keeping the integration problem in mind.
Next, you have to demonstrate that there is a nexus between homeland security funds and the crimes that would be lessened if MJ were legal.
This is not a winner.
|
|
Date: May 9th, 2006 9:49 AM Author: Razzle-dazzle Brilliant Organic Girlfriend Native MJ reduces road rage + rational basis = winner! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5748327) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:14 PM Author: concupiscible chartreuse trailer park Tell you what. This will make it easier to analyze the question.
List some things that the federal government HAS legalized. Then we'll see if marijuana is going to qualify. |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:16 PM Author: twisted principal's office boistinker ABORTIONPWN3D (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5745590) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:19 PM Author: concupiscible chartreuse trailer park Exactly. And everyone criticizes the opinion and wants to see it overturned. Why? Because it is WRONG on the law, even though it is right in principle. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5745617) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:24 PM Author: twisted principal's office boistinker STOP CHANGING THE FUCKING QUESTION. CAN the federal government legalize marijuna? Yes, yes, 1000 times yes. The Supreme Court can recognize a fundamental right, and you could make a better argument for a fundamental right to marijuana than was made for abortion in ROE. Yet ROE _DID_ happen.
Whether or not you or every scholar on earth thinks its bad law, it IS STILL THE LAW (see MARBURY v MADISON)
ROE, GRISWOLD, etc are still good law. If you shift a couple of seats around, then the Court could absolutely go back to this line of protecting fundamental rights. Look at how CAROLENE PRODUCTS got picked up so many years later. Look at home Renquists former dissents have become majority opinions. You are just being a stuborned idiot. You didn't think about the Supreme Court when you posed the question, and you got PWN3D. Take your lickings and drop it. |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:29 PM Author: Flickering Senate Bbw Listen, the supreme court can do whatever it wants. The fundamental right jurisprudence, though, is really restrained. Locher, for example, is villified. I think roe is about the end of the line on that stuff.
Anyway, this is all a far different cry from saying that Congress can pass a law saying pot is legal. |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:34 PM Author: twisted principal's office boistinker Suppose you had been commenting on the Court in the Lochner Era. Your opinions about what the Federal government could do would have been quite wrong. We haven't _advanced_ since that era. The make up of the court simply shifted. Look at the shift from ROE to CASEY. Had a couple more liberals been on the Court we would have gone from ROE to legalized marijuana, easily. Within our lifetime the Court could return to the original, broad logic behind ROE and GRISWOLD. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5745709) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:40 PM Author: Flickering Senate Bbw this is like saying Dred Scott could happen again. Yea, sure, it could. But it probably won't, and saying that "yea, at one point the courts couldn't protect black people so its not clear they will be able to 40 years from now" is somewhat dumb, don't you think?
Sure, if the Court were comprised of Randall Kennedy, Jon Hanson, and all the legal realists, I could imagine them saying some pretty dumb shit. But until that happens, I think we have to assume that the court is NOT going to recognized any more fundamental rights, given how villified they are. |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:46 PM Author: twisted principal's office boistinker He did not ask, "is it likely that the federal government will legalize marijuana?" He asked "can the federal government legalize marijuana?" Not only CAN they, but there are outstanding, not-yet-overturned Court cases that have protected very broadly defined fundamental rights. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5745767) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:52 PM Author: Flickering Senate Bbw I'm trying to tell you that the fundmental rights doctrine is basically dead letter law, and is not useful in the discussion. The possibility of the Supreme Court recognizing a fundamental right to smoke pot is nil. Not even Souter / Ginsberg would go that far. Shit, Stevens upheld the fucking laws. If that was an exam question, and you wrote that as your answer, the prof would give you a B-. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5745816) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:57 PM Author: twisted principal's office boistinker I WASN"T ASKED ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY.
If the professor asked me ways the federal government can leglize marijuana I would have done just fine. |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 11:12 PM Author: Flickering Senate Bbw the question would probably be framed as:
this issue has come to the supreme court. write a brief for your justice.
anyway, the "they could make a fundamental right" line is kinda useless. |
|
Date: May 9th, 2006 9:52 AM Author: Razzle-dazzle Brilliant Organic Girlfriend Native "The possibility of the Supreme Court recognizing a fundamental right to smoke pot is nil."
You're answering the wrong question. CAN, not LIKELY. |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:41 PM Author: concupiscible chartreuse trailer park Roe was a leap. If decided today for the first time it would definitely have come out differently.
Marijuana wouldn't come close, and would definitely not come out the same way Roe did if someone were to bring a due process argument to support its legality today. NO WAY. |
|
Date: May 9th, 2006 9:53 AM Author: Razzle-dazzle Brilliant Organic Girlfriend Native "If decided today for the first time it would definitely have come out differently."
That's nice. WOULD isn't COULD.
"Marijuana wouldn't come close"
That's nice. WOULD isn't COULD. |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:34 PM Author: concupiscible chartreuse trailer park There is absolutely no reason to believe that the SCOTUS would ever realize such a fundamental right, it has decided that there isn't before - heck it won't even allow it as part of religious ceremonies on autonomous Indian reservations.
The SCOTUS COULD but it needs a REASON.
As i said before, the SCOTUS COULD recognize a fundamental right to boil your neighbor alive in battery acid - that doesn't mean it is going to.
Make the argument. |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:39 PM Author: twisted principal's office boistinker I'm not before the Court dumbasss. You wanted to know if the Federal government can legalize marijuana. You have subsequently refined the question with so many exceptions and disclaimers that I have no fucking clue what you are asking any more.
Can the Federal government legalize marijuana? Yes. (see GRISWOLD, ROE) End of argument. |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:44 PM Author: Flickering Senate Bbw you could answer "Supreme Court could recognize a fundamental right to do X" on every con law question. that is hardly a winning argument. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5745756) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:48 PM Author: twisted principal's office boistinker I wasn't asked to weigh the merits of the argument. I was asked if it is something that the federal government CAN do under the Constitution. Answer: Yes. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5745785) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:55 PM Author: Flickering Senate Bbw Ok, answer me this. under your approach, is there anything that the federal government CAN'T do under the constitution?
I mean, beyond stupid shit like the census or enslaving people or something. Can't the S.Ct. just make anything a fundamental right? |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:59 PM Author: twisted principal's office boistinker In short, yes. (see MARBURY v. MADISON). The Court's job is to say what the law is. Just a matter of who is on the court and how far they want to go. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5745876) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 11:07 PM Author: Flickering Senate Bbw If you understood the context of marbury, you'd understand that the Court is quite restrained by the practical realities of the fact that it is merely a court. madison never got his fucking commission.
The fundamental rights doctrine is basically dead letter. It isn't coming back. Once they overturn Roe, that will be the official end. |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 11:19 PM Author: bisexual headpube useless brakes Looking at the context, the Court has gained a lot of power and prestige since Marbury. Marbury is primarily seen as a brilliant opinion because Marshall managed to make a power grab at the time when the Court was at its weakest. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5746029) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 11:22 PM Author: Flickering Senate Bbw Only because he didn't overstep his bounds. He knew Jefferson wouldn't give the commission, so Marshall wrote an opinion that looked good, but made sure that the guy didn't get his commission on some bullshit technical ground.
If Randall Kennedy got on the supreme court and started passing legal realist opinions saying that pot was legal, as was abortion, or any crime by a black person, i'm pretty sure there would be a significant backlash.
The fundamental rights law is dead letter because the court recieved significant backlash, and realized that in order to mantain legitimacy it couldn't make law like that. |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 11:31 PM Author: bisexual headpube useless brakes "Only because he didn't overstep his bounds."
We only think that Marshall didn't over-step his bounds because the power of judicial review has been around for such a long time (some still contend that Marshall DID over-step his bounds). Relatively speaking, asserting the power of judicial review is just as tremendous as recognizing some kind of fundamental right.
"If Randall Kennedy got on the supreme court and started passing legal realist opinions saying that pot was legal, as was abortion, or any crime by a black person, i'm pretty sure there would be a significant backlash."
The plurality in Casey specifically noted that they would stand up to the backlash, and they did. I do not see the power or prestige of the Court plummeting (of course, this did mobilize the political process to get more conservative judges appointed, which is exactly how the system is supposed to work).
"The fundamental rights law is dead letter because the court recieved significant backlash, and realized that in order to mantain legitimacy it couldn't make law like that."
The fundamental rights doctrine isn't instrinsically at odds with legitimacy. It's only when the Court deviates far from the societal norm that it gambles - and this hasn't really happened since Lochner. |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 11:36 PM Author: Flickering Senate Bbw The guy didn't get his commission. If you had a decent con law prof, you'd know that Marshall was totally avoiding the issue.
The court has stood up to the backlash so far, at least the libs have. A lot of people view the court as a purely political body now. Whatever "prestige" it once had has vanished into some purpley political catfight. Wait 15 years. Roe will be overturned by then.
"It's only when the Court deviates far from the societal norm that it gambles - and this hasn't really happened since Lochner."
Nice they you missed Roe, which has created a huge backlash. oh, and it also helps that the court hasn't recognized a single fundamental right since Roe. I wonder why - perhaps because of the backlash?
Whatever you guys want to believe, the fundemental rights doctrine is dead letter. No way in hell is the court going to recognize a fundemental right to smoke pot - they didn't in Raich and they won't ever. And it is also extremely unlikely that the court will recognize another fundamental right in our lifetime. |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 11:44 PM Author: bisexual headpube useless brakes "The guy didn't get his commission. If you had a decent con law prof, you'd know that Marshall was totally avoiding the issue."
Why does it matter if he got the commission or not? The point is that that Marshall asserted an unprecedented amount of judicial power. If Marshall was around today, and recognized a fundamental right to abortion while "losing" the case, would you still focus on the aspect of "losing" the case, or the creation of fundamental rights?
If you had a decent con law prof, you'd know that the commission has nothing to do with the legal significance of the case - only the strategy with which Marshall achieved his aim. If your claim was that this type of strategy is no longer possible because of the proliferation of legal scholars, etc, then I might agree with you.
"Nice they you missed Roe, which has created a huge backlash. oh, and it also helps that the court hasn't recognized a single fundamental right since Roe. I wonder why - perhaps because of the backlash?"
Did they explicitly over-rule Roe? Only partly? Then I guess that the backlash just wasn't strong enough.
|
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 11:50 PM Author: Flickering Senate Bbw As I said already before you started this utter nonsense, he didn't get his commission because Marbury didn't want to go up against Jefferson. It was a power grab, but you have to understand that it was in the context of not wanting to go out of bounds of the judiciary. It took a long, long time before the judiciary got significant power to stand up against the president / congress. Sure, doctrinally marshall's power grab was a big deal. But it didn't mean a whole lot in the real world.
your roe point is totally missing the point. The Supreme Court has not recognized another fundemental right since Roe because of the backlash, which shows how severe that backlash was (beginning with Lochner, and carrying on to today).
Casey basically said roe was wrong but that it was being upheld under stare decisis. Hardly a strong endorsement of the fundamental rights doctrine. It's dead letter, because of the very large backlash. As I said earlier, if Casey didn't already end it, the offical burial of the fundamental rights doctrine will occur when Chief Justice John Roberts writes an opinion overturning Casey and Roe once and for all. he'll cite lochner, say how bad fundamental rights are, and that will be the end of it. |
|
Date: May 9th, 2006 12:08 AM Author: bisexual headpube useless brakes "As I said already before you started this utter nonsense, he didn't get his commission because Marbury didn't want to go up against Jefferson. It was a power grab, but you have to understand that it was in the context of not wanting to go out of bounds of the judiciary."
No, it was in the context of not wanting to let other people know that he was going out of the bounds of the judiciary. Of course, if Marshall had overtly asserted the power of judicial review, the President would have smashed him.
Now, as you said, the Court exercised discretion, etc. for a long time and therefore was able to build up a lot of capital to support judicial review.
And that's my point. You say that Marshall's power grab was within the bounds of the judiciary, yet you say that recognizing a fundamental right is out of the judiciary's bound. If a justice covertly recognizes a fundamental right (just as Marshall did with judicial review), how is this more "out of the bounds" than Marshall's power grab?
"The Supreme Court has not recognized another fundemental right since Roe because of the backlash, which shows how severe that backlash was (beginning with Lochner, and carrying on to today)."
I would actually see it as a pendulum. Of course, after Lochner, judges were reluctant to recognize fundamental rights (hence, all the SDP-in-EP disguise and the Griswold nonsense).
"Casey basically said roe was wrong but that it was being upheld under stare decisis. Hardly a strong endorsement of the fundamental rights doctrine. It's dead letter, because of the very large backlash. As I said earlier, if Casey didn't already end it, the offical burial of the fundamental rights doctrine will occur when Chief Justice John Roberts writes an opinion overturning Casey and Roe once and for all. he'll cite lochner, say how bad fundamental rights are, and that will be the end of it."
We'll see about that. |
|
Date: May 9th, 2006 12:20 AM Author: Flickering Senate Bbw Jefferson would have simply ignored him, because it the S.Ct. had no power. I don't often cite wikipedia, but you apparent misunderstanding of the history behind the case requires it:
-At this point in the country's history, the Supreme Court had been very limited in its exercise of its powers. Chief Justice Marshall knew that if the Court decided for Marbury, Jefferson would almost certainly ignore the decision—a result that would further erode the court's authority. Such a result arguably occurred about 30 years later when Marshall ruled in Worcester v. Georgia, which struck down Georgia laws affecting the Cherokees and President Andrew Jackson refused to compel the state of Georgia to abide by the decision. He is famously, but apocryphally, reported to have said, "John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it."-
Marshall created judicial authority, but he did so within the context of the limits on Courts power - i.e. not to be so aggressive so the court would not be respected. It was out of bounds for the Supreme Court to tell Jefferson what to do. So great, he can review it, but he had to find some BS reason for Marbury to lose. It is important, therefore, that Courts recognize possible backlash when they are "making law" like Marshall did there and like Blackmun did in Roe.
The same goes with fundamental rights. The backlash has affected the court so that now it never recognizes them. I don't know how it can possibly be viewed as a "pendulum." They recognized a few rights, and no almost every single one, including roe, has been vacated. How is this a pendulum? More like falling off a cliff. It's not coming back. The court will probably never recognize another fundamental right, and it certainly will never recognize a right to smoke pot. As history has mandated, this is out of bounds for the judiciary.
The S.Ct. might let roe stand because of stare decisis, but it will never recognize the right to abortion as a fundamental right again, and it will continue to curtail roe until (it if hasn't already) it makes it into a nullity. |
|
Date: May 9th, 2006 12:36 AM Author: milky flirting center there are a lot of things wrong with this post. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5746647) |
|
Date: May 9th, 2006 9:11 AM Author: laughsome sadistic theatre Good lord, how much time have you spent thinking about this stuff? I find myself unable to take law this seriously. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5748225) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 4:57 PM Author: Flickering Senate Bbw I got this from attending one con law class. I didn't make it up on my own. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5759160) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:51 PM Author: concupiscible chartreuse trailer park NO. It cannot. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5745806) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:18 PM Author: concupiscible chartreuse trailer park Ya know, this is all very troubling.
This is supposed to be a law school discussion board, yet most of the people involved in this thread don't know the very fundamental basics of our DUAL SOVREIGNTY system of federal government.
The federal government has something it can do that the states can't. The states have some things they can do that the federal government can't. In between, there are some things that either one could do, depending on the circumstances.
Do you think the federal governments powers are all encompassing, that it can do whatever it wants if it wants to badly enough? You are mistaken.
Look at prohibition - it took a constitutional AMENDMENT to make alcohol totally illegal. How many things has the federal government been able to make LEGAL? Start listing, it's a pretty short list so it shouldn't take you too long. |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:23 PM Author: Flickering Senate Bbw Federal banks do a lot of shit that the states can't make illegal. go look up that bank case... i can't remember which one it is... the power to tax is the same as the power to destroy. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5745643) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:49 PM Author: concupiscible chartreuse trailer park Dood that really has nothing to do with what were talking about.... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5745796) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 11:18 PM Author: Flickering Senate Bbw Sure it does. If a state tried to pass a law saying the federal national bank was illegal, the S.Ct. would pwn them in a heartbeat. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5746015) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:27 PM Author: laughsome sadistic theatre Don't try changing your name to ConLawGunner anytime soon, sport. States would not be able to make all kinds of things illegal--anything that interferes with a federal regulation. Could a state make trademarks illegal there IP guy? No. Supremacy clause. In that sense, the feds "legalized" trademarks. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5745663) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:45 PM Author: Flickering Senate Bbw aren't patents in the constitution, though? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5745759) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:45 PM Author: laughsome sadistic theatre But trademarks are not--Lanham Act. After all, they were once state domain. Then the feds moved in and regularized it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5745763) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:46 PM Author: Flickering Senate Bbw yea, i always get those confused... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5745768) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:45 PM Author: concupiscible chartreuse trailer park You're totally wrong about that.
Tattoo parlors are illegal in Mass. (I heard they were moving to make them legal, maybe it has happened already.)
Cigarette rolling papers are illegal in Rhode Island.
Strip clubs are illegal in MANY places.
Alcohol is illegal in some towns and counties.
DANCING is illegal in some places.
As are pit bulls.
BTW 'GUY' - every time you bring up the supremacy clause, you forget about the tenth amendment. That makes you look stupid, sloppy, or both. |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:47 PM Author: laughsome sadistic theatre How is this responsive? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5745772) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:47 PM Author: Flickering Senate Bbw what does this have to do with trademarks? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5745776) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 11:48 PM Author: concupiscible chartreuse trailer park What does 'can the federal government legalize marijuana' have to do with trademarks? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5746253) |
|
Date: May 9th, 2006 9:08 AM Author: laughsome sadistic theatre IPGunner: "Look at prohibition - it took a constitutional AMENDMENT to make alcohol totally illegal. How many things has the federal government been able to make LEGAL? Start listing, it's a pretty short list so it shouldn't take you too long."
The Lanham act and trademarks are my example. |
|
Date: May 9th, 2006 9:56 AM Author: marvelous wild range elastic band Well, it's a bad example. The Lanham Act doesn't "make trademarks legal." Rather, it prohibits behavior that violates trademarks, as defined by the Act. So it's just a classic regulation of commerce. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5748367) |
|
Date: May 9th, 2006 10:00 AM Author: laughsome sadistic theatre This goes back to the posts in this thread that question IPGunner's use of the term "legalize." What does that mean anyway? Could Congress pass some a law that would make it constitutionally impermissible for states to make something illegal? Absolutely. States cannot make trademarks illegal. Nor can they make civil rights claims illegal. Nor can they make the census illegal. Or national parks. See what I mean? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5748385) |
|
Date: May 9th, 2006 10:08 AM Author: marvelous wild range elastic band I guess I see what you mean, although I'm confused what it would mean to make trademarks illegal.
What you're talking about here is preemption, a word that seems oddly absent from this discussion. By passing the Lanham Act, Congress signaled its intent to occupy the field. Thus, any state unfair competition law that's inconsistent with the Lanham Act, whether more or less stringent, wouldn't fly, b/c it's been preempted by a federal regulatory scheme.
I would wonder whether this holds for federal criminalization of drugs. The fact is that the states have always had greater primacy in criminal law than in a lot of other areas. Some question federal criminal law altogether (albeit some lone holdouts), and many criticize it for its allegedly excessive reach. So a federal "legalization" that prevented states from saying "we want marijuana to be illegal in our state" strikes me as a step too far, but I'm not exactly sure why. |
|
Date: May 9th, 2006 10:14 AM Author: laughsome sadistic theatre Actually most of my posts have been about passing a comprehensive MJ regulatory plan through the commerce power (because MJ crime is economic and substantial), and then stamping out state criminalization laws through preemption analysis under Supremacy. IPGunner has not been able to rebut my points on this approach, but WhateverDood made the point that four justices would probably not let pro-MJ regulation get by a commerce challenge, because they hate drugs (Raich) and they like limiting the commerce power (Lopez/Morrison).
States do have some primacy in criminal law, but one area of criminal law that is HIGHLY federalized is drug law. |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:49 PM Author: twisted principal's office boistinker "The 10th amendement is a mere truism" (DARBY) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5745798) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 11:16 PM Author: Flickering Senate Bbw Well done. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5746003) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 11:20 PM Author: Pale Mischievous Point Sandwich right on, dude. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5746036) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:37 PM Author: Useless hairraiser library "How many things has the federal government been able to make LEGAL"
this is what is so stupid about your argument. the word "legal" can have many meanings. I have no idea what you are trying to get at.
based on existing case law the federal government can stop prohibiting the possession/use/sale of marijuana and can prohibit the states from interfereing with that possession/use/sale. the cases and theories supporting this have been mentioned already in the thread |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:52 PM Author: concupiscible chartreuse trailer park But you are wrong, the federal government cannot prohibit the states from interfering with the possession/use/sale of MJ. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5745820) |
|
Date: May 9th, 2006 12:19 AM Author: milky flirting center i think the point is that it is theoretically possible. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5746517) |
|
Date: May 9th, 2006 10:00 AM Author: Razzle-dazzle Brilliant Organic Girlfriend Native Of course it is. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5748381) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 4:33 PM Author: concupiscible chartreuse trailer park Expain how. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5758992) |
|
Date: May 9th, 2006 9:56 AM Author: Razzle-dazzle Brilliant Organic Girlfriend Native "How many things has the federal government been able to make LEGAL? Start listing, it's a pretty short list so it shouldn't take you too long."
It only takes one to demonstrate CAN. |
|
Date: May 9th, 2006 10:25 AM Author: twisted principal's office boistinker Everytime someone comes up with a new solution, he changes the question. For example, you can clearly do it under the Treaty Power, but then said this wouldn't be the FEDERAL government, this would be the federal government plus another state actor. The presence of another state actor somehow violates the question. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5748532) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 4:35 PM Author: concupiscible chartreuse trailer park Unless those things that the federal government has made legal belong to a class that does not include marijuana.
Therefore you are wrong.
Just because it has made SOMETHING 'legal' most certainly doesn not mean that it can make ANYTHING legal. |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:54 PM Author: twisted principal's office boistinker Before I go out for a beer, we have the following legalized practices...
Abortion Sodomy Interracial marriage Obscene material in your private quarters Use of contraception by unmarried minors
|
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 10:59 PM Author: Flickering Senate Bbw most of those are 14th amendment cases.
abortion is basically it, and even casey basically said it only exists because of stare decisis. |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 11:01 PM Author: twisted principal's office boistinker If no one is allowed to prevent the practice, then it is legalized. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5745891) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2006 11:15 PM Author: Flickering Senate Bbw No, you are way off. The 14th amendment point is that you can't make it illegal for some people and not for others. Like, California can't make pot illegal for blacks but legal for whites.
Loving v. Virginia wasn't making interacial marriage illegla. It was saying Virginia couldn't deny marriage to interracial couples but allow it for homogeneous couples.
Marriage is not a fundamental right. See gay marriage. Is marriage between a man and a woman a fundamental right? We have no caselaw on that, because no state has ever made that illegal. |
|
Date: May 9th, 2006 12:16 AM Author: milky flirting center marriage IS a fundamental right. the law is unclear as to fag marriage, but i'm assuming people will say that it isn't a traditionally protected "marriage," and therefore it isn't fundamental. but marriage IS a fundamental right, per loving. this is like 8th grade poli sci stuff. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5746490) |
|
Date: May 9th, 2006 12:24 AM Author: Flickering Senate Bbw I know there is some language in loving v. Virginia that says that marriage is a "basic right", but that isn't how they decided the case - it was under the 14th. That suggests, therefore, that a court could curtain marriage if it had a compelling state interest. That really isn't a "fundamental right" as under locher and roe. If a state decided to make marriage illegal for criminals, would the S.Ct. strike the law down as violating a fundamental right? Not sure. But regardless, its wrong to say that "the court has recognized interracial marriage as a fundamental right". That simply isn't the case. It wasn't "making interracial marriage legal." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5746555) |
|
Date: May 9th, 2006 12:28 AM Author: milky flirting center no, loving specifically recognized marriage as a fundamental right. portions of the opinion may have been dressed in EP garb, but the court specifically indicated that the law unduly interfered with the "fundamental freedom" of marriage, thereby violating the due process clause. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5746584) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 4:51 PM Author: Flickering Senate Bbw ok, here is the text, again from wikipedia...
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
I read that as a right coming from the 14th amendment, not from some mystery land that fundamental rights came from. Denying the right to marry can be done if you have a good reason - like preventing incest or polygamy. You can't do it on race, though, because that violates the 14th. That's hardly a fundamental right like the right to abortion was when it was first created.
If Congress were to get rid of the 14th amendment, I don't think there is anything in the constitution which prevents a state from putting back miscegenation laws. If this is the best you can do to show a fundamental right to marriage, that is pretty weak. And if you think this provides any sort of strength to the fundamental rights doctrine, that is pretty weak too. This was 14th amendment race discrimination case, and without the 14th amendment it never would have been decided this way.
It would be interesting if a case came up where a state banned marriage between straight people. I guess they might have to recognize a fundamental right there. But It hasn't happened yet, and it won't happen for smoking pot. |
|
Date: May 9th, 2006 9:30 AM Author: twisted principal's office boistinker Subsequent cases have cited LOVING as standing for a fundamental right to marriage. Scalia points to LOVING as standing on equal protection grounds (which it certainly does) and not on substantive due process grounds.
My point is that the current logic behind substantive due process cases is to (1) narrowly define the right and (2) look to the history of society's treatment of the "right." This is the concervative view, and the view the Rehnquist laid out in his PRIOR DISSENTS. Because conservatives now dominate the Court, they have typically adopted this narrow view of fundamental righs, but often by slim majorities. The more expansive fundamental rights doctrine is by no means a dead doctrine, certainly when you have 3 or 4 justices constitently advocating it.
The expansive fundamental rights doctrine (of ROE, GRISWOLD, etc) may _seem_ dead, but it has by no means overturned. And it is no more "dead" than the conservative view of fundamental rights was when Renhquist was laying it out in his dissenting opinions. |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 4:44 PM Author: Flickering Senate Bbw how can you say they are consistently advocating it? Casey basically overturned Roe on this point, even the liberals gave in on this point. Fundamental rights is dead, brother.
anyway, the bottom line is that the s.ct. will never recognized a fundamental right to smoke pot. Anyone who thinks otherwise is nuts. |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 5:28 PM Author: milky flirting center fundamental rights aren't dead, and you are by no means by brother. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5759404) |
|
Date: May 9th, 2006 10:01 AM Author: marvelous wild range elastic band WhateverDood has equal protection and substantive due process mixed up. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5748390) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 4:56 PM Author: Flickering Senate Bbw Perhaps. Explain the difference and why it matters here. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5759152) |
|
Date: May 9th, 2006 9:57 AM Author: Razzle-dazzle Brilliant Organic Girlfriend Native The Supreme Court could steal the torts robot as justification for finding a fundamental right to pot. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5748371) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 3:47 PM Author: laughsome sadistic theatre Let's get this going again (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5758664) |
|
Date: May 10th, 2006 5:04 PM Author: Flickering Senate Bbw Ass.. I need to study today... this con law shit is all such bullshit. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#5759213) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2006 12:43 AM Author: coiffed angry pit a reminder for poshlust of how stupid he is. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#6064646) |
|
Date: July 26th, 2006 10:26 PM Author: Flickering Senate Bbw bump (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=412904&forum_id=2#6309496) |