5 ms·
Good luck convincing the Supreme Court to upend the basis of a huge portion of federal law and decades of judicial precedence in favor of very broad readings of
by rtkwe 8y ago
Good luck convincing the Supreme Court to upend the basis of a huge portion of federal law and decades of judicial precedence in favor of very broad readings of the enumerated powers.
- Alex3917 8y agoThe supreme court has never ruled against the use of drugs for religious purposes in a broad sense, so there's that at least.
- dgzl 8y agoThis is why salvia is legal to buy.
- agnonnnomen 8y agoYou'd think that would go without saying as any theologists ought to be able to derive drug (read: drug-abuse) prohibition from first principles.
- rtkwe 8y agoThis case seems to poke a hole in the religious exercise loophole right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith#Facts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith#F...
- dgzl 8y agoThanks, we'll need it.
- jeffdavis 8y agoHow is that a broad reading? Under what reasonable interpretation of the Constitution does the federal government have the power to tell you not to grow plants on your own property for your own consumption?
- refurb 8y agoThe same law that’s been used to prosecute other crimes, the federal govt jurisdiction over interstate commerce. That decision goes back to federal govt controls over wheat prices. Some guy said “i’ll grow what I want, I don’t care about the price controls” and the courts agreed with the twisted logic that it impact interstate commerce, thus they have the power to control it.
- rtkwe 8y agoThe logic in that case isn't really that twisted. One single guy growing more than allowed for personal use won't move the market but if the court ruled in his favor anyone would be able to do the same which would reduce the demand for wheat. If the government has the authority to regulate price controls at the national level control of all supply is kind of required.
- jeffdavis 8y agoA butterfly flapping its wings in China reduces the demand for wheat.
- int_19h 8y agoUnder Wickard v. Filburn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn You can argue that it's not a reasonable interpretation - I would agree with that. But it is a long-standing one, and there are a lot of things that the feds do today that hinge pretty much solely on it - and that includes pet issues for both the left and the right. Just to give one example, aside from enabling the feds to ban weed, Wickard also enables the feds to enforce the Civil Rights Acts. So it is very unlikely for that interpretation to go away - there's too much staked on it politically.
- jeffdavis 8y agoIt's totally unreasonable, but I agree with you that it's not going away any time soon.
- DenisM 8y agoSupreme Court is getting better, more liberal decisions over years. Gay sex and gay marriage cases were great and justified expansions on the 5th amendment (substantiative due process of the law).
- dgzl 8y agoI believe that gay marriage should have been a first amendment issue, and that terms like 'liberal' and 'conservative' are often times misused.