It’s a good argument if the judge is a Republican, and doesn’t hurt your chances if the judge is a Democrat. Isn’t the philosophy of the legal profession “anything that convinces the judge/jury”? Lawyers make arguments that don’t reflect their own beliefs all the time, because they’re playing to an audience and trying to win.
I mean, I guess if you want to denigrate your entire profession as hypocrites, you’re more than welcome, but I was going to give them a pass because of the adversarial process.
That’s true. But if Democrats who argue in favor of states rights do so to try to impress the judge . . . that’s exactly the sort of hypocrisy you were denying exists moment ago: the adoption of a changing framework to win on a particular issue. They are not, in other words, simply trying to shame Republicans by reminding them of states’ rights; they are seriously, in litigation, advancing a position for the purpose of winning.
So, if you don’t agree with a rule that gives you opponent an advantage, it would be hypocritical to use their rule yourself?
Do you find baseball managers that are against the designated hitter rule, who they themselves use a designated hitter to be hypocrites? Or is it okay to work within a framework that others have set up, even if it is not the way you would like it?
First overturn Wickard. Then regulate commerce in it’s original sense. Prevent states from placing restrictions on the movement of goods across borders. That would be the originalist take.
The argument I have heard is that in 95% of cases the ailment being treated is lack of being high. So all medical marijuana does is turn doctors into pot dealers and if the state wants to allow marijuana then it should allow pot dealers to deal pot and allow doctors to be doctors.
I don’t find it convincing but I understand it.
So you’re the self-appointed mind-reading defender of truth, the only one who can see thru the words and glean the true meaning and intent of the author, and thus you bravely defend… :rolleyes:
Everyone calm down. That means now. That means everyone.
I must agree that the intent of this thread was thoroughly hijacked by the discussing of liberal/conservative hypocrisy. Bricker pulled one part of the OP out and now there’s little discussion of what dtilque wished to discuss.
I realize these things happen, but I want to go on record as stating that I would be extremely dismayed should such things continue to derail or hijack threads. While we don’t give an OP any special powers to control the direction of a thread - though they’ll appeal to moderators every now and again (dtilque has not, lest I create that impression) - we do like to see threads stay on topic.
In this case, I’ll take no action (I reserve the right to do so in the future) other than to say the above and repeat: let a thread be about the thread. Redirecting it in the manner I’ve outlined above makes the appearance of an intentional hijack for purposes of winning a debate instead of discussing a topic.
Absolutely I agree that it’s okay to work within a framework that others have set up, even if it is not the way you would like it.
But the problem here is there’s not a real separation between an individual game of baseball and the rules conference. The manager who uses the DH remains free to argue that the rule should be no designated hitters for future games. The behavior I’m calling out is akin to – in the same game – a manager using the DH when his pitcher’s at the plate and then arguing against its use when his opponent’s pitcher takes a turn at bat.
If the issue of in-state vs. out of state were the thing that attracted the majority, then the opinion would distinguish Wickard, as opposed to overruling it.
A strict constructionist would almost certainly go along with that.
There’s no states’ rights issue here, so most of this discussion is misplaced. Everyone on every side of the issue agrees that states have the power to decriminalize marijuana under state law, and no one on any side of the issue is arguing that states have a legal right to supersede federal law. There’s really no disagreement that the entire marijuana industry that has arisen in certain states exists purely at federal sufferance, as a matter of enforcement policy. There is no serious legal argument for the suggestion that anything the states might do in establishing this industry is binding upon the feds such that the federal government cannot change its mind and start handing down indictments left and right.
Wickard only stands for the proposition that if the federal government legalizes it, it can tax and regulate even what is grown for personal use. There’s no positive argument there compelling legalization.
The OP is onto a slightly stronger point in noting that the states at issue have prohibited export. Under ordinary circumstances, that might amount to a Dormant Commerce Clause violation. I think that doctrine impliedly presupposes a product that is legal under federal law, though, since it is premised on Congress’ right to regulate interstate commerce. Here, the prohibition on export does not infringe on Congress’ authority because Congress has already acted to make the product illegal, and a state law barrng its export is not inconsistent with the federal prohibition.
I took the OP’s premise as disagreement with this assertion:
Perhaps I was mistaken, but the claim that if Sessions’ acts as Attorney General are directed at suppressing state marijuana, then there’s an excellent chance it’ll end up in court was a reference to the existence of some serious legal argument surrounding Wickard and the Commerce Clause.
Your “specific, articulable reasons justifying my reaction” was, yes, just so much bullshit. It was not grounded in reality, not relevant to the desired discussion as outlined by the OP and your reasoning was specious and self-serving. As reasoning, it was so pathetic that really the only response it deserved was what I gave it.
ETA: Saw JC’s note; I’m done with this line of discussion.
OP, here. I may be projecting my disagreement with Wickard onto this argument. But if I were arguing a state’s case in court about this matter, saying that this is a reason to overturn or make an exception to Wickard would seem to me the best way to succeed. The lawyers involved may have other ideas.
As far as why I brought up physician-assised suicide and not some other states’ rights issue, the reason is simple. Assisted suicide is, like legal mj, one of those subjects I got interested in even though it had no personal bearing on my life. (It also involved my own state, which probably contributed to that.) So it came to mind where other instances did not.
And yes, I know that I don’t really know where Sessions is going to come down on legal-mj/states’-rights conflict when push comes to shove. If someone’s asked him about it, it hasn’t made the news, and this is the kind of thing that would. I’d be utterly surprised if he sides with states’ rights here.
[Side note: when assisted suicide first became an issue, it wasn’t a liberal-conservative thing, as best I can tell. It may have evolved to be that, but at first it was one state vs. everyone else. The Clinton admin was against it, as were just about every other politician who spoke up, the main exception being one of our senators from Oregon. I’m sure there were others in favor, but they mostly kept quiet on the issue.]
That was a long, long time ago — and may give an unfair impression of inflexibility. I’m sure Hillary’s views, just like as on every issue, have ‘evolved’ to whichever side the money is.
Maybe a hijack, but could you give your conservative argument for marijuana prohibition? I don’t think I’ve seen one in the wild for a long time. Most conservatives sites I read lean libertarian. Alt-right sites usually think drugs are degenerate, but not particularly different than other vices like gambling, video games, or pornography, and certainly not worth empowering the government with far reaching police powers to chase after. Government led social engineering boondoggles are supposed to be leftist endeavors. Not to mention principles of bodily autonomy.
This seem a good quote to lead up to my point I’d like to make …
Right now, possession, manufacture, sales, etc of marijuana is a felony under the Federal Controlled Substances Act … and I’m assuming this Act stands up against the Constitution … thus it is the Law of the Land …
President Obama signed an Executive order limiting enforcement of Federal law where States have passed laws legalizing it … President-elect Trump has the option of rescinding this Executive order any time he wants to …
Word on the street is that if California legalizes recreational … and they have … then the cats’ are out of the bag … the Feds would have an expensive fight to reign in the madness and this would be against Wall Street’s best interest … and Jeff Sessions will be too busy with, you know, other things …
I forget the name, but he was the State of Kansas Surgeon General … marijuana is not prescription medication until the FDA says it’s prescription medication … and then not until all the required scientific data is collected and analysed … just like every other prescription medication …
It’s a good point … but medical marijuana is just a means to an end … the harsh Federal restrictions is due to marijuana having no medical benefit … which is plainly untrue … once the criteria of the Controlled Substances Act are applied properly, marijuana might come out as over-the-counter anyway …
That’s actually the question here, will it stand up to the Constitution? I think it won’t, although I’ll admit that may be more of a hope than anything else.
The rest of your post is based on this assumption, so I’m not going to address it. Except to point out that if they do attempt to try someone for possession and that person acquired it under a state’s medical marijuana program, they’re going to have a very hard time getting a jury to convict.
Didn’t Raich v. Gonzales settle this question pretty clearly? The Court didn’t even consider whether the feds had the power to ban marijuana. It assumed they did have that power, and held that allowing one individual to grow marijuana for her own medicinal purpose would frustrate the regulatory scheme (presumably they are no longer buying their marijuana on the illegal interstate market, limiting demand and causing lower prices)
I don’t buy it from an originalist’s perspective and would have joined Thomas’ dissent in full, but hell, even Scalia agreed with the government.