For what it's worth, I tend to favor a strong states-right view. The CA medical marijuana law (like Oregon's) is dealing with a plant being grown in the state, consumed in the state by residents of the state and regulated by the state. There is nothing interstate about it.
Where I differ from many states rights supporters is that I feel that 10th Amendment puts individuals (the people) on the same level as states. Individual rights, in my opinion, hold just as much or more validity as states rights and the 10th Amendment is the strongest argument for the rights of the people. The Federal Congress is empowered by Article I, Section 8 to enact such laws as needed to protect those rights. It's a tough dance though between federal, state and individual rights. Judah On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Robert Munn <[email protected]> wrote: > > The irony is that the conservatives on the Supreme Court, who you would > expect to support the states rights argument under normal circumstances, > took the expansionist view of the commerce clause in the Constitution when > they ruled against the CA marijuana law. They argued that CA could not > create its own laws in this area because it would affect interstate trade > somehow. I see that as a bogus argument and merely legal cover for > maintaining a ideologically-driven policy that makes no sense in an era when > a ten year old can get a prescription for Ritalin. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:287206 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
