Fed judge dismisses states' gun suit, By MATT GOURAS (AP) – 13 hours ago

eye95 · Oct 6, 2010

Scalia was attempting to carve out a narrow exception. (Of course, he didn't, because his concurring opinion was not the opinion of the Court.)

His reasoning was basically that marijuana is clearly interstate trade. That gives the feds authority to outright ban it. Allowing folks to possess it for medicinal use impairs the federal governments that existing power to ban the substance. Therefore, even if the marijuana is grown and used in-state, it still violates the ban put in place because marijuana is an interstate business.

In other cases, Scalia has come down clearly on the side of restricted use to the Interstate Commerce Clause.

That his opinion in this one ruling on interstate commerce is distasteful to some is no reason to regard him as the enemy.

I see that an awful lot on this site: Those who disagree on a very few things are painted as just as bad as those who disagree on everything. Unfortunately such willingness to schism aids those who disagree on everything, yet are willing to ally with those who disagree on most.

Ronald Reagan said:
The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally — not a 20 percent traitor.

Scalia is a friend and an ally.

PrayingForWar · Oct 6, 2010

vmaxanarchist said:
Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
In Scalia's seperate opinon he joined with the liberal wing plus Kennedy. Only Oconner, Thomas, and Rehnquist where on the side of Federalisim. Read Thomas's seperate dissent. It is really scathing of the Majority when he gets to speculating on how their opinon allows the Federal goverment to regulate anything in the name of Interstate Commerce.

After reading that I knew Montana would loose in court when they first supposed this kind of law.
The only thing a state can do is decide to overturn their own gun control laws and not cooperate with the Feds, but they have no say in the Feds enforceing Federal law.

Even if some guy in Montana made a gun in his basement machine shop with local steel. SCOTUS would rule that him making that gun affected Interstate Commerce. Because he might have otherwise bought a gun made in another state if he had not made it. That's what they said about backyard gardening.

Thanks for the link, though I don't exactly find everything in wikipedia credible. In this case it seems legit.

Gonzales v. Raich was certainly a #*(%ed up case. I don't understand why Scalia went that route other than perhaps a prejudice against pot smokers. I think if it was an issue of someone growing tomatoes instead of a controlled substance I can only hope sanity would prevail. It certainly does leave open the potential for some fruitcake legislation that would restrict tomato gardens.

I can not for the life of me understand why so many "conservatives" are so adamantly against any effort that relaxes laws against pot, or even drugs in general. To me, it's an issue of personal responsibility and liberty. The moonbats are all for "legalization", but want to license, tax, and regulate the $#!t so much it would probably cost more at the end that the illegal stuff does now.

Scalia's opinion
Justice Scalia wrote a separate concurrence that aimed to differentiate the decision from the more recent results of United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison. Although Scalia voted in favor of limits on the Commerce Clause in the Lopez and Morrison decisions, he said that his understanding of the Necessary and Proper Clause caused him to vote for the Commerce Clause with Raich for the following reason:

“Unlike the power to regulate activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, the power to enact laws enabling effective regulation of interstate commerce can only be exercised in conjunction with congressional regulation of an interstate market, and it extends only to those measures necessary to make the interstate regulation effective. As Lopez itself states, and the Court affirms today, Congress may regulate noneconomic intrastate activities only where the failure to do so “could … undercut” its regulation of interstate commerce. ... This is not a power that threatens to obliterate the line between “what is truly national and what is truly local.”

Though I disagree w/ him here, I think he might still vote in our favor on this issue. If for no other reason than politics in general.

PrayingForWar · Oct 6, 2010

Ronald Reagan said:
The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally — not a 20 percent traitor.

Yeah, what he said.

vmaxanarchist · Oct 6, 2010

PrayingForWar said:
Though I disagree w/ him here, I think he might still vote in our favor on this issue. If for no other reason than politics in general.

I think Scalia's opinion is clear that he will not be on the right side of this issue. Guns made in state will definatly affect interstate commerce. I do not see him contradicting himself just beause he is pro-gun politically. I also suspect that bush's replacements for Oconner and Reihquist would rule on the wrong side too. So far they seem to me to be of the same "Judicial Conservative" ilk as Scalia. That being having a strong respect for precedent and the legislative branch. Only being willing to overturn laws if in clear conflict with constituional rights. Only Thomas is willing to read the Constituion in it's plain language and overturn both.

I agree that Scalia is on our side when it comes to 2nd ammendment law. However this is not a 2A case. In Heller the court has said that laws controling commerce in arms are presumably constitutional. So, it comes down to if the court would overturn it self from the Raich case. The only one I can maybe see on our side is Thomas.

PrayingForWar · Oct 6, 2010

vmaxanarchist said:
I think Scalia's opinion is clear that he will not be on the right side of this issue. Guns made in state will definatly affect interstate commerce. I do not see him contradicting himself just beause he is pro-gun politically. I also suspect that bush's replacements for Oconner and Reihquist would rule on the wrong side too. So far they seem to me to be of the same "Judicial Conservative" ilk as Scalia. That being having a strong respect for precedent and the legislative branch. Only being willing to overturn laws if in clear conflict with constituional rights. Only Thomas is willing to read the Constituion in it's plain language and overturn both.

I agree that Scalia is on our side when it comes to 2nd ammendment law. However this is not a 2A case. In Heller the court has said that laws controling commerce in arms are presumably constitutional. So, it comes down to if the court would overturn it self from the Raich case. The only one I can maybe see on our side is Thomas.

I would have to agree with you about Thomas, he has been a blessing. No wonder the dems so viciously attacked him during his nomination. Still, there are 4 certifiable lunatics on the bench, 2 of which are brand new. If we could just get 4 more Thomases we'd be sitting pretty.

OldCurlyWolf · Oct 7, 2010

PrayingForWar said:
I would have to agree with you about Thomas, he has been a blessing. No wonder the dems so viciously attacked him during his nomination. Still, there are 4 certifiable lunatics on the bench, 2 of which are brand new. If we could just get 4 more Thomases we'd be sitting pretty.

The last two lied to the Senate to get approved. I don't know where to look to find out if they were under oath. If they were they should be impeached for committing perjury and put in the pen for a couple of years. And Motomayer is a Latina Racist.

Fed judge dismisses states' gun suit, By MATT GOURAS (AP) – 13 hours ago

eye95

Well-known member

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member

vmaxanarchist

Campaign Veteran

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member

OldCurlyWolf

Regular Member