Forum Post: Marijuana user wins over conservative judges, not liberals.
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 25, 2011, 10:12 p.m. EST by Rooster8
(49)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Conservatives side with pothead, liberals do not.
GONZALES V. RAICH - This was a Supreme Court Case where a marijuana user was busted by the feds for growing pot for himself and it never left his property (under the Interstate Commerce Clause???). All the conservatives on the bench VOTED FOR the pothead, and all the liberals on the bench VOTED AGAINST the pothead and voted for the federal governments' power. Liberals and big government won.
Dissenting voice: Judge Thomas http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD1.html ** KELO V. NEW LONDON - This was a Supreme Court case where 9 families didn't not want to sell their homes to a private company (Pfizer Pharm.), but the government forced them to. The Supreme Court sided with the government and Pfizer - All for conservative judges VOTED FOR the the families' right to stay, all the liberals VOTED AGAINST the families and instead voted for more government power. Liberals and big business won.
Dissenting voice: Judge O'Connor http://www.law.cornell.edu/sup...
Gonzales v. Raich. This was a case of doctor prescribed medical marijuana that was seized by the DEA. Not "voted for the pothead". So what is the issue?
Does the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801) exceed Congress' power under the commerce clause as applied to the intrastate cultivation and possession of marijuana for medical use?
Look here so that you understand why: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZS.html
Kelo v. New London.
What is the issue? Does a city violate the Fifth Amendment's takings clause if the city takes private property and sells it for private development, with the hopes the development will help the city's bad economy?
No. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the majority held that the city's taking of private property to sell for private development qualified as a "public use" within the meaning of the takings clause. The city was not taking the land simply to benefit a certain group of private individuals, but was following an economic development plan. Such justifications for land takings, the majority argued, should be given deference. The takings here qualified as "public use" despite the fact that the land was not going to be used by the public. The Fifth Amendment did not require "literal" public use, the majority said, but the "broader and more natural interpretation of public use as 'public purpose.'"
Start here: In 2000, the city of New London approved a development plan that, in the words of the Supreme Court of Connecticut, was “projected to create in excess of 1,000 jobs, to increase tax and other revenues, and to revitalize an economically distressed city, including its downtown and waterfront areas.” 268 Conn. 1, 5, 843 A. 2d 500, 507 (2004). In assembling the land needed for this project, the city’s development agent has purchased property from willing sellers and proposes to use the power of eminent domain to acquire the remainder of the property from unwilling owners in exchange for just compensation. The question presented is whether the city’s proposed disposition of this property qualifies as a “public use” within the meaning of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.1 http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZO.html
GirlFriday You asked, "Does the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801) exceed Congress' power under the commerce clause as applied to the intrastate cultivation and possession of marijuana for medical use?"
Yes it does. Here's why? http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD1.html
As for eminent domain, why would our Framers mention "public use" if private companies can use eminent domain for their own gain. It doesn't seem to fit their intention, in fact it seems to be the exact opposite. If you own a company and some land, can another company go to the local government and tell them that their company can do better with that land (you own) then your company or home? Do you see a possibility of corruption here? Here's why the ruling is wrong. You should read this: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZD.html
This ruling might effect the OWS if they try to stay for any extended period of time, even on private property it might not matter.
No, I'm sorry a dissenting opinion does not make it the right one.
Raich v Gonzalez: First, I didn’t ask that question. That was the question presented to the court. All Supreme Court Cases have a question that they answer. Secondly, I would like to remind you that Justice John Paul Stevens was a conservative. In fact, he may have been the last true conservative—that is how far to the right this country has swung. Thirdly, the law in question was not enforced under the Clinton Administration but was under the Bush Administration. Finally, I have found that in many of the decisions that are handed down, there are (what I call) instructions to alter the course, if possible.
The case itself was decided correctly, IMO. The court did not veer off into the great unknown. This was not a surprise. Marijuana is classified as a Schedule I Drug through the CSA and Congress does have the power to regulate. Not to mention, there is that whole Supremacy Clause thang. Because you have a dissenting opinion does not mean the opinion is the correct one.
Look, if you want to change this, then you must alter public policy and the Court makes clear that they are not asked to decide future law but current law. This means that conversations in the public must go further than “puff puff pass”. There are three directions that are often lumped together, and should not be, as there are very different outcomes for each. Rescheduling marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II would allow for it to be prescribed for medicinal purposes and neither the doctor nor the individual would be sanctioned. The second direction is decriminalization and the third direction is legalization. They are not the same and throwing it all together makes me twitch.
Kelo v. City of New London. I’m going to tell you straight up that I hate eminent domain. I’m still willing to hash it out. Regarding Madison, please read this article that, I think, puts this in historical perspective. Further, the direction that the courts had been taking leading up the case meant that it was not a complete shock. In response, many states enacted laws preventing this.
http://law.campbell.edu/lawreview/articles/32-2-227.pdf
This doesn't surprise me at all liberals want to regulate everything from big business down to private ownership such as the pot.
just don't get caught sucking Koch in Georgia, Koch sucker!
hehehe
And as for the government buying land thing this is a constitutional right of government to overturn that would relinquish all of government hold on the US in terms of land. They allow us the right to live here. Yeah it sucks I think it could be done better in a civil court to get the landowners more money to start a new life/legacy.