Are they on pot? I've got my copy of the Constitution right in front of me, and it looks pretty straightforward, but the Supreme Court finds it rather foggy. The tenth amendment clearly states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Which means that if the Constitution doesn't say Congress can do something, it can't. Can Congress pass a law requiring everyone to wear a funny hat? No. Because regulation of hats is not one of the powers granted to Congress. Mind you, the States are perfectly capable of a funny hat mandate, since they have second crack at rights infringement. That's why a lot of States have passed helmet ordinances for kids on bikes and skateboards.
Since drug traffic is usually across state lines and national borders, they can pass drug laws. The Commerce clause of the Constitution says Congress can: "...regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." Which means they could pass a law to make damn sure that Hootie and the Blowfish never performs at another Bingo Casino again. (Call your congressman today!) But that's it. Anything outside of border traffic and Indian trading is off limits to Congress.
Alcohol Prohibition required a Constitutional amendment to go into effect. Back then, everyone understood the limited powers of the Federal government. If fine Milwaukee Beer was brewed with grain grown in Wisconsin, and drank copiously at a Wisconsin Supper Club, alongside a fillet of fresh Wisconsin walleye, it was only subject to Wisconsin law. The Federal Government had no jurisdiction there, and could not pass a law prohibiting such activities.
California Medicinal Marijuana advocates knew this, and acted entirely within California State law. When they handed out pot to cancer patients, they made certain that it was being grown inside of California, and it was being given out for free. They assumed that without money changing hands, it couldn't be called "commerce," and without crossing state lines it couldn't be considered to be "among several states." Imagine their surprise when they were busted by Federal agents.
Believing in the literal interpretation of the Constitution, marijuana patients Diane Monson and Angel Raich fought all the way to the Supreme Court, that those DEA agents were out of their jurisdiction. How wrong they were. The Supreme court just issued a 6 to 3 decision that California's Medical Marijuana act is overruled by the Federal Controlled Substances Act.
Justice Stevens found a loophole. Because giving away free pot in California might affect the price of a bag of Iowa Ditch Weed, it is affecting commerce between the states. Therefore Congress had a right to regulate it. From his opinion: "...the regulation is squarely within Congress commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity"
Even the four Liberal Justices, who are normally more sympathetic to things like free pot and sick people concurred with this decision, because Liberals believe in the ultimate authority of the Federal government, and the ability of Congress to write just about any laws it damn well pleases. (As long as it doesn't affect abortion or gay marriage).
Which is why the ramifications of this decision go way beyond pot. Congress can now write any law, as long as it can find an economic implication. As Clarence Thomas said in his dissenting opinion: If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers." For instance, this decision clears the way for any Funny Hat Bill that Congress proposes, since wearing hats in Washington, would affect the price of Propecia® in Pittsburgh.
How is this possible? Nothing seems more natural than growing something in your own back yard, and baking it into brownies that you can eat with a glass of cold milk when you're not feeling so good. Certainly this is not an activity that requires the intervention of the greatest superpower on Earth. As Clarence Thomas said in his dissenting opinion, "In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana." Our Founders, who were well aware of the danger of a big government made certain that it would have severely limited powers. If you're creating monster, it's best to build a good strong cage first.
Yet, Clarence Thomas has been tarred by the Left as an "extremist." He has been held up as an example of the kind of judge that would be appointed if the filibuster on judicial nominees were broken.
If ever there was a case for eliminating those filibusters, this is certainly it. I also think this is a strong case for only appointing judges who believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution. I congratulate Clarence Thomas on a well written dissenting opinion, admire his dedication to principals, an wish him a long career on the Supreme Court. I also fervently hope he soon finds more kindred spirits on the bench beside him.
