California voters passed Proposition in , allowing qualified patients to cultivate and use marijuana for designated medical illnesses. Gonzales v. Raich. Media. Oral Argument – November 29, ; Opinion Announcement – June 06, Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General, et al. On June 6, , the United States Supreme Court decided Gonzales v. Raich, a case that addressed the constitutionality of the federal Controlled Substances . The dissenters attacked the Majority opinion as a complete departure from the.
| Author: | Akigul Zujind |
| Country: | Guyana |
| Language: | English (Spanish) |
| Genre: | Science |
| Published (Last): | 13 October 2018 |
| Pages: | 461 |
| PDF File Size: | 15.65 Mb |
| ePub File Size: | 10.49 Mb |
| ISBN: | 282-6-86499-522-3 |
| Downloads: | 1213 |
| Price: | Free* [*Free Regsitration Required] |
| Uploader: | Faehn |
On August 15,Butte County Sheriff’s Department officers and agents from the federal Drug Enforcement Administration destroyed all six of California resident Diane Monson’s marijuana v.taich, facing light resistance. They cultivate their cannabis entirely in the State of California—it never crosses state lines, much less as part of a commercial transaction.
Topic areas Constitutional Questions. As I explained at length in United States v. This overreaching stifles an express choice by some States, concerned for opinlon lives and liberties of their people, to regulate medical marijuana differently.
The Federal government of the Gonzalds States has limited the use of marijuana since the Marijuana Tax Act came into effect.
The regulatory scheme is designed to foster the beneficial use of those medications, to prevent their misuse, and to prohibit entirely the possession or use of substances listed in Schedule I, except as a part of a strictly controlled research project.
Gonzales v. Raich :: U.S. 1 () :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
Like the farmer in Wickardrespondents are cultivating, for home consumption, a fungible commodity for which there is an established, albeit illegal, interstate market. If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption not because it ipinion interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commercethen Congress’ Article I powers — as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause — have no meaningful limits.
Incidents of the traffic which are not an integral part of the interstate or foreign flow, such as manufacture, local distribution, v.raidh possession, nonetheless have a substantial and v.rauch effect upon interstate commerce because—. Again, whether this is a reasonable conclusion is irrelevant for Constitutional law purposes; what matters is whether the law is minimally rational.
This makes a mockery of Madison’s assurance to the people of New York that the “powers delegated” to the Federal Government are “few and defined”, while those of the States are “numerous and indefinite. Exercising those powers, California by ballot initiative and then by legislative codification has come to its own conclusion about opibion difficult and sensitive question of whether marijuana should be available to relieve severe pain and suffering.
In this regard, the Majority pointed out that Congress might have concluded that despite the science, the danger of abuse was so great that cannabis needed to remain a totally prohibited substance. Beyond demonstrating the power of Congress to use its Commerce Clause authority to regulate what is considered legal medical practice under the law, Gonzales v.
I think that ginzales unjustified. California, v.raidh other States, has drawn on its reserved powers to distinguish the regulation of medicinal marijuana. Relying on oponion principles, O’Connor was reluctant to allow the federal government to override the decisions of certain states including many beyond California to protect the individual liberties of their citizens by growing marijuana on their property for personal and medical use.
The second case involves the proscription of certain abortions. Thus, even if respondents are correct that marijuana does have accepted medical uses and thus should be redesignated as a lesser schedule drug,[ Footnote 37 ] the CSA would still impose controls beyond what is required by California law.
By defining the class at a high level of generality as the intrastate manufacture and possession of marijuanathe c.raich overlooks that individuals authorized by state law to manufacture and possess medical marijuana exert no demonstrable effect on the interstate drug market.
V.arich and its implications. Other States likewise prohibit diversion of marijuana for nonmedical purposes. A number of noteworthy events precipitated this policy shift.
They are asserted without any supporting evidence—descriptive, statistical, or otherwise. First, Congress can regulate the channels of interstate commerce.
I cannot agree that our decision in Lopez contemplated such evasive or overbroad legislative strategies with approval. Filburn to support the theory that market demands and the flow of the interstate economy would draw marijuana grown for medicinal use into channels for recreational use. Please check official sources. The Controlled Substances Act does not recognize the medical use of marijuana.
In Wickardwe had no difficulty concluding that Congress had a rational basis for believing that, when viewed in the aggregate, leaving home-consumed wheat outside the regulatory scheme would have a substantial influence on price and market conditions.
The CSA is a statute that regulates the production, distribution, and consumption of commodities for which there is an established, and lucrative, interstate market.
Retrieved from ” https: WirtzU. Ogden9 Wheat. SparkCal. The Act did not regulate any economic activity and did not contain any requirement that the possession of a gun have any connection to past interstate activity or a predictable impact on future commercial activity. The Government has not overcome empirical doubt that the number of Californians engaged in personal cultivation, possession, and use of medical marijuana, or the amount of marijuana they produce, is enough to threaten the federal regime.
The Commerce Clause and Medical Marijuana: Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005)
However, Congress clearly acted rationally in determining that this subdivided class of activities is an essential part of the larger regulatory scheme. With v.raicu to whether the legislative history contains congressional findings regarding the effects on interstate commerce, the court was able to cite findings relating to the effect that intrastate drug trafficking activity would have on interstate commerce.
For now, federal law is blind to the wisdom of a future day when the right to use medical marijuana to alleviate excruciating pain may be deemed fundamental. The intrastate conduct swept within a general regulatory scheme may or may oinion have a substantial effect on the relevant interstate market. RaichU.
Indeed, if declarations like these suffice to justify federal regulation, and if the Court today is right about what passes rationality review before us, then our decision in Morrison should have come out the other way. In their complaint and supporting affidavits, Raich and Monson described the severity of their afflictions, their repeatedly futile attempts to obtain relief with conventional medications, and the opinions of their doctors concerning their need to use marijuana.