3 ms·

In Gonzales v Raich[1], the Supreme Court affirmed the government's right to control drugs grown domestically within a state and sold to state citizens. The st

by ghayes 13y ago

In Gonzales v Raich[1], the Supreme Court affirmed the government's right to control drugs grown domestically within a state and sold to state citizens. The states, however, are not violating Federal law in non-enforcement. The Federal government is free to enforce its laws against violators of federal laws in its courts (District/Circuit). States are basically declaring that its not a priority or objective of its state police officers. It's not nullification, so much as it's "That's your law; you enforce it." [1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZS.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZS.html

JoshTriplett 13y ago
That precedent seems rather circular; it effectively says "intrastate commerce affects interstate commerce, thus we can regulate intrastate commerce". That seems like a rather blatant license for arbitrary regulation on an ends-justify-the-means basis: we can't do what we want under those restrictions, so we don't have to follow those restrictions.
- ghayes 13y ago
  It might be worth reading Wickard v. Filburn (1942)[1] for the original case that intrastate commerce affecting interstate commerce and therefore regulatable by the federal government. In US v. Lopez (1995)[2], the Court does actual say there are limits to what the federal government can lump under "interstate commerce," as they declare that the Gun-Free School Zones Act was beyond the power of Congress. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez
- baddox 13y ago
  > That seems like a rather blatant license for arbitrary regulation on an ends-justify-the-means basis: we can't do what we want under those restrictions, so we don't have to follow those restrictions. Of course that's what it is. That's what virtually everything the federal government does is.

by ghayes 13y ago

JoshTriplett 13y ago

That precedent seems rather circular; it effectively says "intrastate commerce affects interstate commerce, thus we can regulate intrastate commerce". That seems like a rather blatant license for arbitrary regulation on an ends-justify-the-means basis: we can't do what we want under those restrictions, so we don't have to follow those restrictions.

ghayes 13y ago
It might be worth reading Wickard v. Filburn (1942)[1] for the original case that intrastate commerce affecting interstate commerce and therefore regulatable by the federal government. In US v. Lopez (1995)[2], the Court does actual say there are limits to what the federal government can lump under "interstate commerce," as they declare that the Gun-Free School Zones Act was beyond the power of Congress. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez
baddox 13y ago
> That seems like a rather blatant license for arbitrary regulation on an ends-justify-the-means basis: we can't do what we want under those restrictions, so we don't have to follow those restrictions. Of course that's what it is. That's what virtually everything the federal government does is.