« Back to story "Can Congress Write Any Law it Wants?"

Story Comments

Posted by: engineer 8 months, 1 week ago

This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.

All Comments Share Story Report

100%
engineer8 months, 1 week ago

This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

Congress can write any legal law within the confines of the Constitution. There is also States rights. This is why traffic laws, criminal law within each state, like death penalty, and other laws are limited to the States.

(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 2) (recursion depth : 1) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
Reply
9 Replies

loading ...
- PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive8 Replies
  - 50%
    Pecossam8 months, 1 week ago
    
    This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
    
    PsychoHosebeast,
    
    And let us not forget that it was the four CONSERVATIVE Jurists on the Supreme Court who upheld the Rights of the States regarding Medical Marijuana laws, yet the Conservatives get bad-mouthed. Though one may not always agree with the Conservative rulings of the Court, America's Supreme Court is ALWAYS better-off in Conservative hands rather than Liberal, for the Conservatives will always take the side of ORIGINAL INTENT, where the Real Strength of Our Constitution resides. The Constitution says what it means and it means what it says --- NO Liberal interpretation required NOR desired, for it has been the Liberal interpretations that have caused so much havoc in our government, especially since the day when FDR threatened to "Pack-the-Court" if certain Jurists didn't reverse themselves and favor his meddling with the 9TH and 10TH Amendments, id est; a Liberal interpretation of the "Commerce Clause". America has been paying the price ever since, and one such as Obama would have never dreamed of what he's pulling-off now without that Liberal Interpretation, and that goes for Bush and others who preceded "THE ONE".
    
    (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 4) (recursion depth : 3) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
    Reply
    7 Replies
    
    loading ...
    - 100%
      alakazam8 months ago
      
      This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
      
      The current Federal Marijuana laws are pure Fascism at it's finest.
      
      State suppression of a commodity because it would interfere with Corporate profits?
      
      Yeah...that's Fascism.
      
      (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 5) (recursion depth : 4) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
      Reply
      0 Replies
      
      loading ...
    - 50%
      kobzikov8 months ago
      
      This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
      
      What a bunch of revisionist fiction.
      
      There were only 3 dissenting votes on Gonzales v. Raich and one of them was Sandra Day O'Connor, who I'm guessing Pecossam would not consider a conservative, because if he does, then pretty much every justice more conservative then O'Connor would be a conservative and a lot more of them sided with the government.
      
      (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 5) (recursion depth : 4) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
      Reply
      5 Replies
      
      loading ...
      - Neutral
        Pecossam8 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        kobzikov,
        
        You are correct in stating the ruling was 6-3 rather than 5-4. I had in mind United States V. Lopez (1995), in which Chief Justice Renquist wrote the Majority Opinion (5-4), and which also considered the "Commerce Clause" in its deliberations (as it seems so many of the Supreme Court's cases are concerned with this clause). And I stand by what I posted, especially about the "Commerce Clause", for Associate Justice Stevens, who wrote the Majority Opinion, relied on three relevant precedents:
        
        1) Wickard V. Filburn (1942)
        2) United States v. Lopez (1995)
        3) United Sates v. Morrison (2000)
        
        Associate Justice Scalia came very close to dissenting in Gonzales V. Raich (2005), due to his reasoning in United States V. Lopez (1995). Although Scalia voted in favor of limits on the "Commerce Clause" in the LOPEZ and MORRISON decisions, he said that his understanding of the "Neccessary and Proper Clause" caused him to vote for the "Commerce Clause" in RAICH.
        
        Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (appointed by President Reagan) was indeed conservative in many was, as witnessed by some of her rulings. Though she, in my humble estimation, went out in 'LEFT FIELD" in her opinion on the States' various sodomy laws and deferred to European mores, something that should never be considered when considering the consitutionality of laws in the United States.
        
        In light of what I have posted, how can you possibly consider my comment, "...a bunch of revisionist fiction."? Is it your intention to be provocative?
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 6) (recursion depth : 5) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        4 Replies
        
        loading ...
        
        Neutral
        kobzikov8 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        In light of what I have posted, how can you possibly consider my comment, "...a bunch of revisionist fiction."?
        
        By looking at the facts, such as that United States V. Lopez was NOT about medical marijuana, which is what you said. The case was about gun-free school zones.
        
        I still don't understand whether you consider O'Connor liberal or conservative? Which one is it? Better yet, why don't you list the four conservative justices that you were referring to, to dispel the ambiguity.
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 7) (recursion depth : 6) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        3 Replies
        
        loading ...
        
        Neutral
        Pecossam8 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        kobzikov,
        
        And just where did I state that "United States v. Lopez" was about medical marijuana? That would most likely be due to your misreading what I wrote in my reply concerning Associate Justice Scalia. I suggest you re-read that paragraph and you will see I NEVER said any such thing.
        
        The point is, if those in favor be 5-4 (United States v. Lopez) or 6-3 (Gonzales v. Raich), what I have written about the coerced definition of the "Commerce Clause" since FDR threatened to "Pack the Court" in the 1930's stands. It has effectively crippled the 9Th and 10TH amendments to Our Constitution. Do you care to disagree? Fine. Please state your reasons. As far as accusing me of "...a bunch of revisionist fiction.", you make too much of an honest mistake. Aren't you intelligent enough to make an argument for or against what I have written concerning the "Commerce Clause", something of REAL IMPORT?
        
        As far as the Justices I consider the MOST conservative, they are (at the time of the Gonzales v. Raich" ruling):
        
        1) Thomas
        2) Chief Justice Rehnquist
        3) Scalia
        4) Kennedy
        (and I'll add a fifth) O'Connor
        
        I listed these Justices in order of faithfulness to Our Constitution. In "Gonzales v. Raich", Justice O'Connor began her dissenting opinion by citing United States v. Lopez", with a reference to Justice Brandeis's dissenting opinion in "New York State Ice Company v. Liebmann":
        Federalism promotes innovation by allowing for the possibility that "a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country." In other words, she wanted California and the other "pro-medical-marijuana" States to be free of federal government interference. That's Conservative. O'Connor has some bad marks against her, but a review of her decisions shows her to be more conservative than Liberal/Inventive. I will not hide the fact that I was disappointed in her State Sodomy Ruling, in that she deferred to European mores, something a Justice of our Supreme Court should NEVER do, as they are to interpret the constitutionality of laws based solely on Our Constitution. Still, she's a far cry from the Uber Liberal/Leftist, Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
        
        Now, kobzikov, how about some feed back on the "Commerce Clause" and my position on it? For anything else, I will not answer on this thread. It is getting OLD. Thank you.
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 8) (recursion depth : 7) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        loading ...
        
        Neutral
        kobzikov8 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        Sigh, you said, quote "And let us not forget that it was the four CONSERVATIVE Jurists on the Supreme Court who upheld the Rights of the States regarding Medical Marijuana laws".
        
        After I pointed out that the split was 6-3, not 5-4 you said quote "I had in mind United States V. Lopez (1995), in which Chief Justice Renquist wrote the Majority Opinion (5-4)", even though the case was NOT about medical marijuana, so it seems pretty clear to me that you were not referring to the case in your first post to PsychoHosebeast, which means you threw it in as a simple deflection.
        
        So far you have NOT told me what is the name of the case where 4 conservative justices "upheld the Rights of the States regarding Medical Marijuana laws", it's clearly not United States vs Lopez and it's clearly not Gonzales v. Raich. So which case is it?
        
        I'm pretty sure that the case doesn't exist, unless you made a mistake and were in fact referring to Gonzales v. Raich, in which case a simple admission of a mistake on your part is in order.
        
        I would also consider what you said about O'Connor deferring to European mores in Lawrence v Texas to be legal fiction as well, maybe you confused it with Atkins v Virginia, which was not about sodomy by the way.
        
        Either way, while O'Connor is right off center, her ideology is a far cry from what you defined as original intent since she quite often relied on gauging public opinion to guide her decisions, which is the opposite of original intent. And since both Kennedy and Scalia who according to you are conservatives sided with the government what you initially said is still false.
        
        Your position on Commerce Clause if nothing else is ahistoric. Supreme Court has affirmed broad exercise of government's power in Gibbons v Ogden, and its use of Commerce Clause, see John Marshall's opinion. That has been the case until roughly the end of 19th century when it started narrowly redefining it to exclude manufacturing, mining, insurance industry, etc, which ended when "The switch in time that saved nine", which largely returned US government the broad powers of regulating commerce that it had after Gibbons v Ogden.
        
        http://www.landmarkcases.org/landmarkframe_commerc...
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 9) (recursion depth : 8) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        loading ...
        
        Neutral
        Pecossam8 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        kobzikov,
        
        "You are correct in stating the ruling was 6-3 rather than 5-4. I had in mind United States verses Lopez in which Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the Majority Opinion (5-4) AND WHICH ALSO CONSIDERED THE "COMMERCE CLAUSE".
        I wrote that in reply to your original reply to me. The phrase "AND WHICH ALSO" should give you a clue that I was no longer referring to "Raich", but rather the MAIN ISSUE which involved BOTH "RAICH" AND "LOPEZ" ---and THAT is the "COMMERCE CLAUSE". If you could not comprehend that from my comments which followed, then I would suggest you smoke less "Medical Marijuana". You're simply a provocative quibbler, and I won't waste any more time on this.
        
        As far as your comments regarding the "Commerce Clause", I am well aware of what Chief Justice Marshall wrote. The FACT remains that it wasn't until FDR's time (The Great Depression of the 1930's) that this clause was given such a BROAD INTERPRETATION and allowed the Federal Government to meddle in the business of the States as NEVER BEFORE (Civil War Era excepted). Concerning your statement , "The switch in time that saved nine." ( a result of FDR's Pack the Court Plan), which largely returned US government the broad powers of regulating commerce that it had after Gibbons v Ogden.", that is merely the OPINION of the author of the law text you quoted it from. It is a LIBERAL OPINION, and it is false. The government NEVER exercised such power in the name of the "Commerce Clause" as it has since the time of FDR. Perhaps if you did some INDEPENDENT study of a NON-LIBERAL bent, (which is hard to do, with all the revisionist Liberal Law Professors), you would have your eyes open.
        
        In so far as my estimation of the Supreme Court Justices, you, as I and everyone else, are entitled to their opinions regarding their relative Liberality or Conservatism. In "Gonzales v. Raich" (6-3), the FACT remains that three Justices had CONSERVATIVE dissents. They were: Thomas, O'Connor, and Rehnquist (joining O'Connor), thus upholding the right of the States and the People. I stand by my opinions.
        
        Now, return to your full-length mirror and practice your legal oratory. Enjoy yourself!
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 10) (recursion depth : 9) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        0 Replies
        
        loading ...