A doctor prescribing a patient marijuana is neither "interstate" nor "commerce." The Supreme Court ruled today in Gonzales v. Raich that such activity falls under Congress's purview via the Constitution's Interstate Commerce Clause. It's not called the "high" court for nothing.

So how did the Supreme Court come to classify a non-economic activity confined to a single state "interstate commerce"? "Our case law firmly establishes Congress' power to regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic 'class of activities' that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce," the majority opinion held. Sometime after the joint came round, John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority: "Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself 'commercial,' in that it is not produced for sale."

In 1996, the people of California voted to allow doctors to prescribe marijuana for medicinal purposes. In 2005, the Supreme Court usurped the rights of California's voters, and the voters of eight other states, in overturning laws not in conflict with the U.S. Constitution but in conflict with the personal beliefs of six jurists.

You expected them to overturn Wickard v. Filburn?

There are many, including myself, who would derive some benefit from medicinal marijuana. But that is not the point here. The point is that a majority of voters in a state voted to enact their wishes into law. But then 6 people turn around and tell them they know what is best for them.

"Welcome to the United States of America, where you can have life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness...as long as you do it our way. Really, we liberal elite know what is best for you! Just sit back and let us control every aspect of your lives. Oh, are you in terrible pain? Vomiting all the time? You want medicinal marijuana? Heaven forbid, why don't you just sit back let yourself die, we liberals like that....." (please note heavy sarcasm)

Be well (or else),

Sponge Daddy

"So...do you care if it falls?"

"....Whaa?"

"The Roman Empire, man..."

"Fuuuuu*K it!"

I believe that O'Connor's dissent is on target and Thomas' dissent is properly alarming. Scalia's concurrence is actually restraint. Scalia joins with the majority by refusing to impose the court in an intra-jurisdictional dispute.

....neither respondents nor the dissenters suggest any violation of state sovereignty of the sort that would render this regulation “inappropriate,”...except to argue that the CSA regulates an area typically left to state regulation. That is not enough to render federal regulation an inappropriate means. The Court has repeatedly recognized that, if authorized by the commerce power, Congress may regulate private endeavors “even when [that regulation] may pre-empt express state-law determinations contrary to the result which has commended itself to the collective wisdom of Congress.”

I think Scalia is saying that if Congress has overstepped its bounds, take it up with Congress. The court cannot rule that it unequivocably violates enumerated powers similar actions have been allowed, by interpretation of the Court, by the "Necessary and Proper" clause. N&P is one of the most needfully open-ended powers granted by the Cons.

In overturning the appeals court, the court is restraining court action on this case. They are not nullifying a state law as much as denying that the state has a better claim than Congress to "regulate 'interstate' commerce".

Now, that aside, I do think that the Supreme Court has a more legitimate right to interfere with a branch that was in full view when they were created. This is opposed to states' rights, where the rights of the states were meant to be sort of question marks, or open-ended. The powers against these states were enumerated after the fact and beforehand, to limit the influence of the federal government on the states. The rights of the states were reserved to it--whatever did not conflict with the powers granted. But I have to applaud restraint when I see it.

But Scalia should keep in mind that his incrementalism, will invite future Scalias to cite from Stevens' opinion on how the court has refused to restrict the powers of Congress in relation to necessary and proper laws in regulation of interstate commerce. So, in 5 years, he has another opinion to cite which will cause further indecision in an advocate for restraint like himself. And states as "laboratories" becomes an ever more distant view.

And frankly, I'm not sure that there are that many voices on the right, that will threaten the Congress to make it pull back its claws.

It is true that Congress can change the law. But the whole reason this rests with Congress is based on what I hope many will now see is an absurd reading of the Constitution. Anyone without a firm grasp of living constitutional theory cannot comprehend the vastness of the phrase "interstate commerce." What is particularly so insulting about the decision is how Stevens ends it so nonchalantly with "But perhaps even more important than these legal avenues is the democratic process, in which the voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress," as if that were not orders of magnitude harder than changing state law which is difficult in itself and as if the democratic process were not already tried, correctly and successfully at the state level. Thomas’ dissent is alarming only its ability to reveal the façade and to do so in straightforward language. I hope Reid is eating crow right now over calling Thomas an embarrassment to the Supreme Court. The embarrassment lies with the majority.

I should have known after the way the court ruled against the NRA in the McCain-Feingold bill limiting political speech. Scalia really disappointed me.

I don't know how it happened but the Supreme Court no longer seems to care what the Constitution says or means.

On a personal note my Doctor wanted to try marijuana for my severe muscle spasms due to Fibromyalgia. There is nothing else she can try. Now there is not even that hope. :|

Why again, should marijuana in ANY form be illegal?

Why shouldn’t it? The onus (I love that word) is on you. Onus! onus! onus!

The Constitution is written on hemp paper. What better reason against illegality can there be?

This is proof positive that the "living Constitution" is not necessarily a road to greater freedom, as some of its adherents naively believe.

The interstate commerce clause of the Constitution is no longer taken seriously by anyone, because of Federalism.

Since, well, about 1900.

The Supreme Court decision is one I see as a result of an increased social conservatism in the US...

Come to the Netherlands -- on the forefront of battles for liberty and the right to do whatever you damn well please since 1550!!!!!!!