22-12-2003 11:31									#31
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Why the strawman?

Face it, Wickard ain't going away anytime soon. If the Rhenquist court didn't strike it down when they had the chance, then the SCOTUS never will.

	22-12-2003 11:35									#32
	Support Apolyton

Imran,

Would YOU vote to strike down Wickard?

Just curious.

	22-12-2003 11:43									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: But if you read the rest of the opinion, you'll see the court say that growing wheat affects supply and demand. If they grew less (under federal dictate) then they'd have to buy wheat and all sorts of other BS. The court ended up saying intrastate commercial activity also counts as interstate commerce. And under your prediction, I assume that you as well believe that Wickard will be cited to strike this law down.

I doubt Wickard will be cited since it creates another "logic" problem with pot being illegal in other states. I suspect they will avoid that problem by declaring the FDA (and Congress) to be the arbiter of what medicines we can or cannot use regardless of whether or not there is a legal interstate market. But the SCOTUS ruled that Congress can punish farmers who grow outside of the quota range established by Congress even when the surplus is used for consumption by the farmers themselves. As David points out, the feds literally told farmers they can be punished for eating their own food. Sound like Stalin? Yes, albeit the punishments aren't the same.

	22-12-2003 11:52									#34
	Got spare money?

quote: Would YOU vote to strike down Wickard?

Of course.

quote: the feds literally told farmers they can be punished for eating their own food.

Which is why I think that case can be used in this case. Like I said before, they can say other states could legalize pot if they vote that way and then it would affect the supply and demand in those states as well. It can easily be massaged in that way.

	22-12-2003 12:05									#35
	Full PM-box? Change here!

But then Wickard would only qualify as a precedent if Congress wants to actually regulate pot similar to wheat in the Wickard case, i.e., set up quotas to maintain "order" in the market. After all, that was the entire rationale for Wickard and the Agricultural Act, to prevent shortages or over supply of wheat, not to ban it. That's why the SCOTUS will ignore Wickard and simply declare the supreme authority of the FDA and Congress to decide which medicines we get to use regardless of what the states say on the matter. I'm sure there are already precedents (just as bogus as Wickard no doubt) establishing the FDA's authority in that area...

	22-12-2003 12:07									#36
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: But then Wickard would only qualify as a precedent if Congress wants to actually regulate pot similar to wheat in the Wickard case

Not so! Wickard has been used in precedent even without quotas. Nothing says precedent has to be strictly applied, and it usually isn't.

quote: That's why the SCOTUS will ignore Wickard and simply declare the supreme authority of the FDA and Congress to decide which medicines we get to use regardless of what the states say on the matter.

IMO, they'd still use Wickard, at least as a footnote, to say medicine industry is commerce, even if it is only done intrastate, as Wickard is the first case to say purely intrastate commerce can be regulated under the commerce clause.

	22-12-2003 12:46									#37
	Got spare money?

quote: Not so! Wickard has been used in precedent even without quotas. Nothing says precedent has to be strictly applied, and it usually isn't.

To ban a crop that is legal in only one state? It would be illogical to use Wickard to ban a crop, that decision and the catalyst for it dealt with preventing shortages or over-supply. But whoever said the SCOTUS or Congress was logical, certainly not me. But maybe you can explain how a case ostensibly involving the prevention or reduction of market "disruptions" in supply and demand can be used to justify a massive market disruption engineered by Congress, i.e., a complete ban. I mean, what's the point of citing a precedent when the precedent is not even analogous? They can do whatever they want and they certainly weren't following any precedent when deciding Wickard, they were just making stuff up. But that's how we've gotten so far from the Constitution, one SCOTUS allows the invention of a power and later courts call it "precedent" and declare it more legitimate than the actual Constitution.

quote: IMO, they'd still use Wickard, at least as a footnote, to say medicine industry is commerce, even if it is only done intrastate, as Wickard is the first case to say purely intrastate commerce can be regulated under the commerce clause.

Well, they can cite Wickard but that wouldn't make any sense since there is no legal interstate market. That would be like using the power to regulate interstate commerce to outlaw a product that exists only in one state and that's like Congress outlawing pot in Columbia because Congress has the power to ban it's importation into the USA under the commerce clause.

	22-12-2003 14:15									#38
	Got spare money?

Well, I haven't read any of these cases being discussed in this thread (links would be helpful) but I think this case was rightly decided. Commerce that subtantially affects interstate commerce can be regulated, IMHO. But commerce that has but a de minimis effect cannot. In this case, the medical marijuana can and probably is grown in the state of California, is consumed by Californians and has no effect outside California.

No decision has to be overruled. However, to the extent that prior cases must be limited, so be it.

This actually is a tremendous blow for States Rights. Bravo 9th Cir. As the Supremes are now heavily in favor of States Rights, they might even go so far as to actually overrule prior cases that went to far.

Let's hope so.

	22-12-2003 19:58									#39
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: I think you mis-read my prediction, I'd be surprised if the SCOTUS upholds the ruling, not over rules the 9th which is what I expect. As for guns in a school zone, it doesn't matter if it's a commercial activity. Only that an activity and any activity that "effects" commerce which in turn "automatically" effects interstate commerce falls under Congress' perview. And as Ramo points out, pot is illegal to sell in other states so it doesn't fall under interstate commerce even with the "new" definition.

The problem with that logic, as I stated above, is that as soon as another state legalizes marijuana, it does fall under interstate commerce, and the federal law comes into effect, overriding both state laws.

So, a state that didn't like legal marijuana in California could legalize it in their state, making it illegal in California

	22-12-2003 22:39									#40
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Why should the legal status in other states affect the status, as commerce is surely a matter of fact irrespective of whether it is legal or not

	22-12-2003 23:19									#41
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: I mean, what's the point of citing a precedent when the precedent is not even analogous?

Well the precedent can be analogous. Like sky pointed out, as soon as another state legalizes it, then it commerce in more than one states. It would be prospective ruling which the SCOTUS likes to make. They don't normally contain their ruling to the specific facts in front of them.

quote: Well, they can cite Wickard but that wouldn't make any sense since there is no legal interstate market.

Well, as I've said, the precedent has basically been interpreted to mean that any commerce, intrastate or interstate can be regulated by the feds, as long as it is commerce.

	22-12-2003 23:20									#42
	Full PM-box? Change here!

@ the 9th circuit court

I do that about once a week, even I agree with them.

	23-12-2003 04:57									#43
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui [qWell, as I've said, the precedent has basically been interpreted to mean that any commerce, intrastate or interstate can be regulated by the feds, as long as it is commerce.

Well, Imran, if that is what the case stands for, the Supreme WILL overrule it for sure. The majority today is in favor of STATES RIGHTS.

	23-12-2003 05:12									#44
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Well, Imran, if that is what the case stands for, the Supreme WILL overrule it for sure. The majority today is in favor of STATES RIGHTS.

Um... yeah... Ned. Which is why when they had the chance they didn't overrule that precedent.

Sorry, they aren't going to rule for states' rights this go around. They aren't that states' rights oriented.

	23-12-2003 05:15									#45
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: Well, Imran, if that is what the case stands for, the Supreme WILL overrule it for sure. The majority today is in favor of STATES RIGHTS. Um... yeah... Ned. Which is why when they had the chance they didn't overrule that precedent. Sorry, they aren't going to rule for states' rights this go around. They aren't that states' rights oriented.

Imran, it would be nice if you provided links to cases you cite.

What case are you talking about in your message?

	23-12-2003 05:17									#46
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Lopez and Morrison BOTH reduced the power of the commerce clause, but didn't come close to overturning Wickard.

As for this court being states' rights oriented, but not TOO states' rights orientated look at Bush v. Gore.

	23-12-2003 05:23									#47
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

It REALLY would be nice if you provided links or full case names.

	23-12-2003 05:24									#48
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Add 'US' to both of them.

	23-12-2003 05:51									#49
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Here is a link to the Lopez case. It seems fully consistent with the current willing to 9th Cir.

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.ZO.html

	23-12-2003 05:55									#50
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

You don't get it! The court had a chance to overrule Wickard and all its precedent with Lopez and they didn't do it. They took the narrower ruling that non-commerical activity does fall under the Interstate Commerce Clause. They could also have said that intrastate activities cannot be governed by the ICC, but yet did not. They didn't even touch on that fact (that it was intrastate and not just non-commercial).

Why?

Cause Wickard is WAAAAY to deeply entrenched to be overruled now. Plenty of government law is based on it. The only justices I could see who would overrule is are Rhenquist, Scalia, and Thomas. O'Conner and Kennedy would undoubtably join the Liberal 4 on this issue.

	23-12-2003 08:22									#51
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui The only justices I could see who would overrule is are Rhenquist, Scalia, and Thomas.

It's a drug case. I wouldn't even go that far.

	23-12-2003 08:30									#52
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

That's actually a good point, DD. It may go straight 9-0 to reverse.

	23-12-2003 08:40									#53
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui That's actually a good point, DD. It may go straight 9-0 to reverse.

One picks up a few things when one stays awake during class.

Anyway you people are wierd. The case involving Camp X-ray seems like it would be the most interesting case given that the issues surrounding it seem to be still up in the air unlike the drug case you people seem to be intent on talking to death.

	23-12-2003 08:42									#54
	Put an end to popups!

True, but I'm going with the discussion here .

The Gitmo case could go for giving them trial. O'Conner may go with the Lefties. Then again, they may cite suspension of habeus for emergencies.... but this would be too long a detention for that, right?

	23-12-2003 08:47									#55
	Put an end to popups!

I'm thinking the case from the 2nd circuit (?) involving Padilla will be affirmed. That should have been obvious to the government from the start. However, I'm somewhat comfortable in assuming that SCOTUS will reverse the case from the 9th.

	23-12-2003 08:58									#56
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I'll go out on a limb and say that both the 9th and 2nd Circuits' decisions on detention will be upheld. After all, we're talking about the same court that that ruled on Zadvydas v. Davis.

	23-12-2003 09:02									#57
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: I'm thinking the case from the 2nd circuit (?) involving Padilla will be affirmed. That should have been obvious to the government from the start. However, I'm somewhat comfortable in assuming that SCOTUS will reverse the case from the 9th.

You think they may claim national emergency and the President's foriegn affairs powers on the 9th Circuit case? That is definetly a possibility. But at least 3 will dissent on that, I think. This isn't WW2, after all.

	23-12-2003 09:11									#58
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui You think they may claim national emergency and the President's foriegn affairs powers on the 9th Circuit case? That is definetly a possibility.

I was centering on the foreign affairs powers of the President. I hadn't consideredthe national emergency angle.

re Zadvydas v. Davis: This seems to be dealing with different issues than the case at hand. I don't see the Court feeling themselves limited by it when dealing with the case from the 9th.

	23-12-2003 09:22									#59
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: I hadn't consideredthe national emergency angle.

Yeah, I was thinking Korematsu, though the SCOTUS will NEVER actually cite the case as precedent, even though it is still good law .

	23-12-2003 09:26									#60
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: re Zadvydas v. Davis: This seems to be dealing with different issues than the case at hand. I don't see the Court feeling themselves limited by it when dealing with the case from the 9th.

Point is, this court has in the past argued against indefinite detention of aliens. The circumstances are certainly different (9/11 has happened, people were detained by the military, etc.), but I think there's a real possibility they'll uphold the 9th Circuit's decision.