 |
|  |
 |
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Imran, what I find fascinating though is Scalia's concurring opinion. His "Necessary and Proper" clause is a very broad reaching interpretation, that virtually removes anything remotely associated with the economy from the perview of the states. I felt the Thomas had a much better reading of the strict constructionist interpretation, while the majority opinion maintains the status quo and modern jurisprudence. Scalia has the far-reaching opinion that is most activist, i.e. expanding the power of the federal government.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Exactly, Dinodoc, even though Stevens apologized about the resulting decision as he supported medical marijuana personally. OConner did the same in her dissent, she noted she would NOT have voted for nor supported the law even though her dissent would have permitted its implementation.
Go to the SCOTUS site and read Scalia's opinion. He is doing one of his odd agenda driven opinions, and seems to have a hard-on for the "Necessary and Proper" clause. As he is neither supporting jurisprudence opinion (the majority), nor the rather well written strict constructionist dissent (Thomas) I am trying to figure this one out. We are talking about the next Chief Justice.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35. Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|