GONZALES V.RAICH OPINION PDF
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.
|Published (Last):||23 September 2005|
|PDF File Size:||1.46 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||14.4 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Raich and Monson then sued to v.raidh enforcement of the CSA, arguing that, as applied to them, the CSA amounted to an unlawful exercise of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, which authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce. WaltersF. The intrastate conduct swept within a general regulatory scheme may or may not have a substantial effect on the relevant interstate market. HealdU.
Section q is not an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the gomzales scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated. See RaichS. The attorneys general of AlabamaLouisiana opjnion, and Mississippithree strongly antidrug states from the conservative Southfiled a brief supporting Raich, on the grounds of states’ rights.
The first two categories are self-evident, since they are the ingredients of interstate commerce itself. This is not a power that threatens to obliterate the line between “what is truly national and what is truly local. Raich and its implications.
We generally assume States enforce their laws, see Riley v. Legality of cannabis in the United States. In Lopez and Morrisonwe suggested that economic activity usually relates directly to commercial activity. The breadth of legislation that Congress enacts says nothing about whether the intrastate activity substantially affects interstate commerce, let alone whether it is necessary to the scheme.
I cannot agree that our decision in Lopez contemplated such evasive or overbroad legislative strategies with approval. Second, Congress has authority to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and persons or things in interstate commerce. Both Justice Scalia’s concurring opinion and Justice Thomas’s dissenting opinion focused on the scope and import of the “Necessary and Proper” clause. Alberto GonzalesAttorney General, et al. The Necessary and Proper Clause is not a warrant to Congress to enact any law that bears some conceivable connection to the exercise of an enumerated power.
The Commerce Clause unquestionably permits this. Morrisonsupraat Thomas, J. She viewed the states as potential laboratories for experiment in areas such as legalizing marijuana, which echoes one of the main justifications for federalism. In Julythe Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit enjoined as unconstitutional the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act ofbecause of its failure to provide for a health exception for women.
Rather, as this Court has acknowledged since at least United States v. Filburn on the grounds that the AAA clearly delineated carefully between personal and non-personal use and contained personal use exemptions none of which applied to the defendant in the case.
Like the farmer in Wickardrespondents are cultivating, for home consumption, a fungible commodity for which there is an established, albeit illegal, interstate market.
The homegrown cultivation opiinion personal possession and use of marijuana for medicinal purposes has no apparent commercial character. Congress may ban the use of cannabis even if states approve its use for medicinal purposes.
The Commerce Clause and Medical Marijuana: Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005)
Respondents challenge only the application of the CSA to medicinal use of marijuana. 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.
Be that as it may, we have never required Congress to make particularized findings in order to legislate, see LopezU. Title II of that Act, the CSA, repealed most of the earlier antidrug laws in favor of a comprehensive regime opinlon combat the international and interstate traffic in illicit drugs.
That argument stems from the landmark New Deal case Wickard v. Raich Moncrieffe v. The gonnzales that California law has surgically excised a discrete activity that is hermetically sealed off from the larger interstate marijuana market is a dubious proposition, and, more importantly, one that Congress could have rationally rejected.
The fatal flaw of both laws according to the Majority was their failure to be grounded in any notion of interstate commerce. Raich’s doctor stated that she would be in extreme, life-threatening pain if she did not use the marijuana as allowed under the California Compassionate Use Act. Moreover, as discussed in more detail above, Congress did make findings regarding the effects of intrastate drug activity on interstate commerce.
Gonzales v. Raich – Wikipedia
See Wickard, U. Those two cases, of course, are LopezU. Morrisonthe Court invalidated the Violence Against Women Act ofa federal law that made violent acts against women a federal crime. RaichS. Until today, such arguments have been made only in dissent.
The governments of CaliforniaMarylandand Washington also filed briefs supporting Raich. See postat opinioh Scalia, J. This overreaching stifles an express choice opiniom some States, concerned for the lives and liberties of their people, to regulate medical marijuana differently. Retrieved 6 April See also Hipolite Egg Co.
While Congress has no broad police powers authority to regulate directly in the name of public health, Gonzales v. Congress has exercised its power over interstate commerce to criminalize trafficking in marijuana across state lines. The principal dissent claims that, if this is opibion to sustain the regulation at issue in this case, then it should also have been sufficient to sustain the regulation at issue in United States v.
With respect 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 gonzaes have on interstate commerce. See generally LopezU.
The parallel concern making it appropriate to include marijuana grown for home consumption in the CSA is the likelihood that the high demand in the interstate market will draw such marijuana into that market.
We normally presume that States enforce their own laws, Riley v.