4 ms·
Just to add some context to this, this expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause really began with Wickard v. Filburn (1942) [1], more often just called F
by cletus 5y ago
Just to add some context to this, this expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause really began with Wickard v. Filburn (1942) [1], more often just called Filburn.
The essence of this decision was Federal policy in the Great Depression was to control wheat production to stop overproduction and the below-cost prices that resulted. The court decided that a farmer growing wheat for his own use was still within the jurisdiction of the commerce clause as that production would result in that farmer not purchasing wheat. That wheat that wasn't purchased would in turn affect interstates wheat sales and thus fell under the Commerce Clause.
To me, this is a ridiculous example of judicial overreach as it basically covers everything and in an ideal world SCOTUS would overturn that precedent.
So the Gonzalez decision just continues that earlier interpretation and gives the Federal government sweeping powers for what reasonable people might otherwise agree are state issues.
Interestingly, I just looked up the Gonzalez decision [2] and I think I've found possibly the only Thomas opinion I've ever agreed with. He dissents:
> Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. 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.
Somewhat surprising (at least to me), Scalia concurred with the majority opinion although wrote separate reasoning for it.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
- dqpb 5y agoSo therefore the argument is basically that it’s illegal to not buy marijuana, because that affects interstate commerce?
- cletus 5y agoThe argument is that by growing your own marijuana you affect Congress's ability to regulate the interstate commerce of marijuana, which is consistent with Filburn. But where does that end? Can Congress prohibit you from earning an income because you might use that income to buy marijuana?
- hirundo 5y agoThis argument came up during the Affordable Care Act debate. The question was, if the feds can make you buy health insurance, could they also make you buy broccoli? There's this famous exchange from Justice Kagan's confirmation hearing: Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, who is also a medical doctor, asked, “If I wanted to sponsor a bill and it said, ‘Americans, you have to eat three vegetables and three fruits every day,’ and I got it through Congress and it’s now the law of the land, got to do it, does that violate the commerce clause?” “Sounds like a dumb law,” Ms. Kagan replied. She declined to presume that it would be unconstitutional. Justice Ginsburg had a similar interpretation. https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1860&context=faculty_scholarship https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1... They believe the constitutionality of enforcing such transactions depends on the details of its application, and is not facially unconstitutional. So if the legislature could be convinced that pot is health supporting, SCOTUS may well find it to be within their power to mandate.
- bcrosby95 5y agoThe idea that the constitution doesn't allow the government to force me to say something, but might allow them to force me to put something into my body, is completely wild to me.