Reason.com
New at Reason
Growing dope in your backyard for personal consumption? Commerce. Eating a ham sandwich on your porch? Commerce. The Friday column Jacob Sullum wrote at home in his study? Definitely commerce. With the possible exception of beating women and bringing guns to school, in fact, commerce, like God, is omnipresent and (by way of empowering Congress) omnipotent. All hail commerce.
Most Popular Stories
- St. Louis Cops Worry That In-Car Cameras 'Are Being Used Against Them' (5.23)
- Here Are the 15 Senators Who Voted to Stop Armed FDA Agents From Conducting Warrantless Raids on America's Farmers (Not One of Them is a Democrat) (5.24)
- Reason "Hero of Freedom" Larry Flynt's Latest Stunt? Photoshopping a Penis into Mouth of Conservative Pundit S.E. Cupp (5.24)
- When Government Privileges Trump the Rights of Citizens (5.25)
- Plastic Bag Ban Will Put Los Angeles In Landfill (5.23)
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Reason-Rupe: Wisconsinites Favor Increasing Public Union Retirement Contributions to Address Budget Deficit (5.25)
- Reason-Rupe Poll Finds Support for Public Union Reforms (5.25)
- New Poll: Obama Leads Romney In Wisconsin, But Gary Johnson Could Impact the Race (5.24)
- Wisconsin Recall: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42 Among Likely Voters (5.24)
- Reason-Rupe Poll: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42, Obama Leads Romney 46-36 (5.24)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.
|6.10.05 @ 10:43AM|#
Could any of the Founders have ever dreamed that their descendents would be hoisted on the petard of commerce?
Of all things!
Adam|6.10.05 @ 11:03AM|#
Nothing like a fresh Jacob Sullum article and a fat pipe chock-full o' commerce to start the day. Come 'n git me, Gonzales.
|6.10.05 @ 11:13AM|#
I, for one, welcome our new commerce overlords.
Adam|6.10.05 @ 11:14AM|#
"Today, when a concerted effort is made to obliterate this point, it cannot be repeated too often that the Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals--that it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government--that it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizens� protection against the government."
- Ayn Rand
|6.10.05 @ 11:27AM|#
Adam,
As the Political Class becomes more distinguishable, more powerful, and more focused in one direction (state power), it is increasingly terrifying that these people are in charge of defending (or not) and interpreting the document that is supposed to restrain their power. It's like hooking your dog up to a leash, then allowing the dog to take the leash and do whatever it wants with it.
ed|6.10.05 @ 11:58AM|#
That's very old-fashioned thinking, Adam.
Next you'll be telling us that our rights don't come from God.
And that man originated from apes.
bruce|6.10.05 @ 12:21PM|#
It also took a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol. Why didn't congress just invoke the commerce clause to bring about prohibition?
MP|6.10.05 @ 12:42PM|#
It also took a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol. Why didn't congress just invoke the commerce clause to bring about prohibition?
Because before the Great Depression and FDR, they would have been laughed out of court.
I found this link on the SS website the other day. It includes this great story which shows one of the ways in which the Progressives twisted the meaning of the Constitution to suit their own ends.
|6.10.05 @ 1:34PM|#
Well no shit the Federal Government is going to try to expand it's powers at every turn. And cops will try to search your vehicle without a warrant every chance they get.
Know your rights.
What have the states done to preserve their rights? Did even a handful of states intervene in this case, arguing against this expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause?
Why do rights of all states hinge on a case brought by two sick individuals? The frickin State of California should have been the entity defending itself, along with every other state with med mj laws.
|6.10.05 @ 3:20PM|#
I am very upset by the Supreme Court decision regarding "Medical Marajuana". I think it is a poor interpretation of the Constitution and blatant hypocrisy on the part of the Supreme Court Justices.
However, I never really bought the idea of "Medical Marajuana" as presented by so many people like Mrs. Raich. For one, there is no conventional theraputic drug that has been proven to work by burning it and inhaling the fumes (Incense and Tobacco don't count). There is a synthetic THC drug called Marinol and it is a regulated Controlled Substance. So, the medical and scientific comunity has already admitted that Marajuana's active ingredient, THC, is useful to treat nausea and anorexia. The people who laud smoking MJ to treat symptoms of chronic illness are a tiny minority of the population at large. And, there are literally 1000's of other drugs out there that successfully treat the same symptoms in millions of other patients.
Most people who smoke MJ do it just to get high. Using this "Medical Marajuana" justification is not the best way to convince the population at large, or lawmakers in general, that Marajuana should be on the same standing as other substances like Tobacco, Coffee, and Beer. That, I believe, is the ultimate motive behind this push for legalizing "Medical Marajuana".
I personally don't have any prejudices about Marajuana, although I don't smoke it myself. You can smoke all the bud you want for all I care, for whatever reason you want. I think MJ is safer than Alcohol, which is mostly legal. The people who want to grow dope in their back yards and smoke it themselves should be free from legal intervention, especially if local laws allow it. The Federal Government has clearly overstepped its bounds here.
-Matt C.-
|6.10.05 @ 4:43PM|#
I don't support med marijuana as a means to an end (end the drug war), I see it as an end, which would be allowing the terminally ill ANYTHING that makes them feel better.
If a termiinally ill person uses it peacefully and privately to make themselves feel better, thats more than enough proof in my book. The sick person inhales marijuana, feels better, therefore, there is a therapeutic value. I'm sure prayer would have been laughed at by most scientists as having value in sickness, but it does too.
So even though the DEA or ODNCB (or whatever that one is) likes to make paint the pro medpot movement as using the terminally ill for a political goal, its just not true.
|6.10.05 @ 5:02PM|#
I always thought the med marijuana movement was to give the hypocrits of the 60s and 70s who support the war on drugs an easy way to say, well, these people need this drug that I know is completely harmless but which I personally now dislike because I'm a middle aged asshole with a pool cue up my ass.
Mark Bahner|6.10.05 @ 5:56PM|#
"Did even a handful of states intervene in this case, arguing against this expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause?"
Yeah, it annoyed the hell out of me to hear it reported that California Attorney General Bill Lockyer rushed to assure everyone that the ruling was no big deal. Easier for him to say, since he presumably doesn't have a medical problem for which marijuana is beneficial.
Mark Bahner|6.10.05 @ 6:08PM|#
"However, I never really bought the idea of 'Medical Marajuana' as presented by so many people like Mrs. Raich."
I've heard Montel Williams speak about HIS use of medical marijuana. He certainly sounded convincing to me when he said that marijuana literally saved his life. He said that his pain was so excruciating and so constant, that he seriously considered suicide. And he said that marijuana made a night-and-day difference. Here are some mentions of his use of medical marijuana:
http://www.hightimes.com/ht/news/content.php?bid=368&aid=24
http://blog.dopies.com/physical/7/Montel-Williams-uses-Medical-Marijuana-for-Multiple-Sclerosis
I tell ya, if any loved one of mine ever needs marijuana for medical reasons, I'm going to get it. And if any government official ever intervenes, he or she will be doing so at serious personal risk.
|6.10.05 @ 6:16PM|#
"I don't support med marijuana as a means to an end (end the drug war), I see it as an end, which would be allowing the terminally ill ANYTHING that makes them feel better."
Comment by: Jared at June 10, 2005 04:43 PM
I agree. The terminally ill should be allowed to use liberal doses of narcotics, herbs, or whatever helps them ease their pain at the end of their lives. I even support limited euthanasia (which kind of exists already via Advance Directives).
The thing is, Angel Raich and Diane Monson aren't terminally ill. They're chronically ill and are convinced that Marajuana is what they need. Quite frankly, I'm on their side. But, its not because I believe in the miracle properties of pot. I'm not convinced that smoking Marajuana is really the cure all treatment so many NORML activists claim it is. I do think the THC in pot helps them out with digestive problems. I also think they just like the way pot makes them feel. And, there's nothing wrong with that in my book.
The real problem here is how popular culture views Marajuana.
-Matt C.-
Lazlo|6.10.05 @ 6:32PM|#
I think Lockyer's point was that the CA MMJ laws still stand -- the decision doesn't mean the state of California will suddenly start harrassing medical marijuana users again.
As far as the popular view of marijuana use goes, Diane Monson sitting for national-media interviews on the day of the decision while taking hits off a swirled-glass Tommy Chong Mk. VII probably didn't score the movement too many points on the "taking MMJ seriously" scale.
|6.10.05 @ 7:20PM|#
"As far as the popular view of marijuana use goes, Diane Monson sitting for national-media interviews on the day of the decision while taking hits off a swirled-glass Tommy Chong Mk. VII probably didn't score the movement too many points on the "taking MMJ seriously" scale."
So she should have been using a Roor?
More seriously, if it makes her feel better, why stop her? Extend that beyond marijuana and beyond the terminally or chronically ill and we'll be getting somewhere. If only...
|6.10.05 @ 10:39PM|#
Interestingly, there is a scene in Reefer Madness where a G-man is explaining the Feds are largely prevented from eliminating the "deadly scourge" because it is grown and available in every state. Watch the movie again, only this time try to keep from laughing long enough to catch it. (I wanted to post something here when I first caught it, but at the time there wasn't a relevant topic started...)
|6.10.05 @ 11:01PM|#
Thanks bigbig,
Can you say, "commerce"?
Never say it again.
You can say "congress."
If you'll pardon saying it.
Excuse moi.
Sexual congress.
Hello.
Last post of eve.
James Anderson Merritt|6.11.05 @ 7:44PM|#
I guess what the Justices are telling us is that the plain language of the Constitution isn't specific enough to prevent clever legislators and lawyers, abetted by intellectually perverse justices, from wriggling free of the legal "chains" that were once forged to restrain the federal government.
The States can have the last laugh here, if they have what it takes to act.
Clearly, we now need a new amendment to the Constitution, which limits the Commerce power. This suggestion is not an overreaction to the present ruling, nor overkill, even if the original impetus were simply to legalize medical marijuana. From dissenting justices on down, many intelligent people are now believing that Congress has no effective limits on its regulatory (or police) powers. Making a ham sandwich in your kitchen with locally baked bread and meat grown and processed in the next county can be considered interstate commerce -- or, at least, subject to regulations on interstate commerce -- so long as there is an interstate market in pre-made ham sandwiches and a comprehensive federal scheme to regulate that market.
This situation cannot stand, and as the Court has declined to rebuke Congress, the States are the only ones who can reduce Congress to its proper role in our federal system. That can only be done through constitutional amendment.
Here is my first draft of what the Commerce Clause Clarification Amendment should say. I'm sure you constitutional mavens out there (especially the ones in DC) can come up with better, but I'm tossing this draft into the ring because we need to get the ball rolling right away. If Raich stands and is used as precedent for too many more years, I can't imagine what the US will be like -- but I bet Orwell could.
Can any of you out there simplify and/or strengthen the following? Please do!
===============================================
AMENDMENT XXVIII
Congress' authority to regulate commerce among the several states shall not include the power to prohibit commerce, either directly, or indirectly, through onerous regulation or the imposition of excessive fees or taxes.
Congress' interest in the regulation of commerce among the several states shall always be to promote commerce, not restrict or prevent it.
Congress shall make no law that regulates commercial activities, to the extent that they occur entirely or substantially within the borders of a single State. The President shall not enforce laws in such a manner as to have the effect of regulating or constraining commercial activities, to the extent that they occur entirely or substantially within the borders of a single State. In making, applying, and enforcing law, the burden of proof is on the federal government, to establish, using facts and arguments that are both pertinent and compelling, the extent to which any particular class or instance of commerce occurs "among the several states."
Activities pursued or goods produced or acquired in avoidance of normal commerce shall not themselves be considered "commercial," or suitable as objects of regulation under the authority this Constitution gives the Congress.
With all deliberate speed, Congress shall examine federal commercial regulation that exists at the time of the enactment of this Amendment, and shall repeal any such law that is found to be in conflict with the letter or spirit of this Amendment. The President shall issue pardons for any convictions that were based on any laws so repealed.
Larry A|6.12.05 @ 8:08PM|#
With all deliberate speed, Congress shall examine federal commercial regulation that exists at the time of the enactment of this Amendment, and shall repeal any such law that is found to be in conflict with the letter or spirit of this Amendment. The President shall issue pardons for any convictions that were based on any laws so repealed.
How about, "All federal regulations in conflict with the letter or spirit of this Amendment are repealed. Any persons convicted for violating such a regulation may immediately apply to have the convictions expunged. The burden of proof shall be on the government to prove the regulation has not been rendered unconstitutional."