3 - Decision of the Court

The decision(6-3) was in favor of the Petitionor Attourney general Ashcroft.  Justice John Paul Stevens stated that the ʻcommerce clauseʻ  gave congress authority to prohibit local cultivation.  In short, the local cultivation of Marjuana affected the national marijuana market.  And, that Raichsʻ activities were under that of which falls under the Controlled Substances Act.

 

“No. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that the commerce clause gave Congress authority to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana, despite state law to the contrary. Stevens argued that the Court's precedent "firmly established" Congress' commerce clause power to regulate purely local activities that are part of a "class of activities" with a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The majority argued that Congress could ban local marijuana use because it was part of such a "class of activities": the national marijuana market. Local use affected supply and demand in the national marijuana market, making the regulation of intrastate use "essential" to regulating the drug's national market. The majority distinguished the case from Lopez and Morrison. In those cases, statutes regulated non-economic activity and fell entirely outside Congress' commerce power; in this case, the Court was asked to strike down a particular application of a valid statutory scheme.”

Quote from

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_03_1454/

The Dissent Opinion

Justices Rehnquist, OʻConnor, Thomas

With a statement from justice OʻConnor stated from a previous case precedent, she has dissented.  Giving compassion to the subject matter.  Stating that the role of the state regarding marijuana.  The state of California, through ballot initiative and also by legislative process, has come to a conclusion that marijuana should be available to relieve severe pain and suffering.  She also stated that the state of California police powers have defined criminal law, and perhaps have laws that protect the health, safety, and welfare of their own citizens.  Implementing that the Marijuana cultivation of Raich on a local level should be handled on a state level and that it didn’t effect national commerce of Marijuana. 

The Concurring Opinion

Justice Stevens, upheld the previous case precedent.  However, strongly noted the other avenue of relief.  It is implemented in his opinion about the CSA in which classified Marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug.  Under the current CSA law, it makes Marijuana illegal, specifically pertaining to the ʻcommerce clauseʻ.  However he also stated that the case may point to a reclassification of such Schedule 1 drug list under the ʻcommerce clauseʻ.  That reclassification is a democratic process that may in the future be heard in congress.  He then reiterates that marijuana, under the current CSA, is listed under ʻSchedule 1ʻ drugs, and currently supports the petitionors angle in this case.

We do note, however, the presence of another avenue of relief. As the Solicitor General confirmed during oral argument, the statute authorizes procedures for the reclassification of Schedule I drugs. But perhaps even more important than these legal avenues is the democratic process, in which the voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress.

 

Under the present state of the law, however, the judgment of the Court of Appeals must be vacated. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered.

-       from the opinion by Justice Stevens

http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2004/11/23/raichVAshcroftAGuideToTheS.html

2 - Issues of the Case

Commerce Clause – Congress has the some power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the states, and with the Native American tribes. These Three areas of commerce, a seperat power granted the the US congress. Also known as “Foreign Commerce Clause”, “Interstate Commerce Clause” and “Indian Commerce Clause”. Each refers to different application of the same single sentence in the Constitution.

Pertaining to this case, it is known that the Commerce Clause has weakened, thus giving Federal government more leeway in regulating and evforcing federal laws within a given state. Gradually accepting that “interstate commerce” can be regulated through the states, to expanding it to include transactions that affect interste commerce, to anything that Congress decides is interstate commerce.

Specifically, this Marijuana case is a “Commerce Clause” case. The decision will have ramifications that extends beyond medical marijuana.

In this case nothing was sold. Raichsʻ activities involving marijuana was in-state(California). There was no activity that was “interstateʻ(state to state) or “commerce”. Her Life depended on the use of marijuana, in which, was recommended by her doctors and allowed by state and local laws. The ruling of the court was to decide whether Raichsʻ medical marijuana was an act of interstate commerce or whether the federal government has to let the states handle medical marijuana.

Furthurmore, the federal government has claimed that as long as the activity is related to any other part of interstate commerce, then congress has the power to determine the bounds of anything pertaining to its discretion. The effect gives congress unlimited power to determine on what degree they may interfere in state law.

http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2004/11/23/raichVAshcroftAGuideToTheS.html

Progress Update - Week 8 EOC

I am still gathering more facts of the case to solidify my material for the rest of the points that need to be included in the Final Project breakdown. I will structure next couple points to include my opinion and weather i agree or disagree based on facts that are stated. there are not many resources to look up facts about this case. I will continue to pull up local press or websites about this case. and I will also look at similar cases cause somehow i get the feeling that this case is broad and tied into other findings and issues that arose. I would have to break down the 2 parties and facts of both parties on why they entered a supreme court case. I would have to look at existing laws during that time frame and how they affected the arguement. I will also try to include morality within my opinions and judgements about the case. I will make it as detailed as possible. I will also include a more detailed summary of facts based on State laws and federal laws on marijuana use and prohibition. And also my personal views on the laws itself.1) Issue of the Case - I will try to include issues coming from the plaintiff and defendant. And also my opinion of both and where I agree and disagree.2) Decision of the court - I will include my opinion on the court decision and validating points as much as possible.

1- Facts of Case

supreme court case 03-1454

In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 215 Compassionate Use Act(Prop 215), which legalized marijuana for medical use. Within prop 215, it is stated that, with a doctors recommendation, patients are able to posses, use and cultivate marijuana for medicinal use. The law that passed has, since then, conflicted with federal laws’ Controlled Substaces Act(CSA), which banned the possession of marijuana. The Drug Enforcement Administration(DEA) seized marijuana from a patient. A group of marijuana patients then sued the DEA and the US Attorney General John Ashcroft in federal district court.

Respondents Raich and Monson, California residents who both use marijuana which was perscribed by doctors for serious medical conditions. DEA Seized and destoyed Monson's cannabis plants. Respondents claim that the DEA, who then performed the seizure under the CSAwas in violation of the Commerce Clause and other constitutional provisions. The district court denied the respondents' motion for the injunction. but the ninth circuit court reversed. they found that the CSA is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress'
Commerce clause authority as it only applied to the intrastate, non commercial cultivation and possession of cannabis for personal medical uses. as recommended by a doctor, pursuant to prop 215. Ninth circuit relied on the USvsLopez court case(514 US 549) and US vs Morrizon(529 US 598), recognizing that this cas of purely local activities was beyond the reach of federal power.

9th Circuit court of California ruled in favor of Raich. However, US government filed petition with the US supreme court to appeal the case.

www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.zs.html
www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_03_1454

EOC – Week 7 Property rights

What are your rights as a property owner?
Your rights as a property owner is to uphold any and every other legal rights to anyone else in the house. For the sake of the movie. The rights that the land lord have for the other tenants are still obligated. If I was the property owner I would have pressed charges the moment the unwanted tenant entered the house without regard. The moment he was in the house without permission of the land lord is trespassing. There was no contracts signed and also no money that was transferred from the tenant to land lord. As far as I am concerned the guy with the Porsche is homeless. I think the laws favor owners over tenants. I think I would have a right to lay the smack down or to take matters in my own hands. I would kick the door down and vacate the house and let the judge decide who was right and wrong in the situation. Humans have a general idea of what is right and what is wrong. We are born with it, we have a general map of right and wrong. And I am assuming that the law has a certain idea of right and wrong. The movie was probably glamorized to prove a point. As a land lord I think I have a right to kick anyone out of the house if they didn’t pay the rent. At the very least put an eviction notice because down payment or rent was not received. As a property owner you have a right to call the police and/or lawyer when you think a tort is committed against you. Of course you have a right to be upset but being violent may not stand in court. You also have a right to publicize your situation to any editorial or newscast in an attempt to gain public acceptance and or legal expedition.

3's

3ʻs About Me

Three Names I have been called:
Sly-mer, Twix, Gumby

Three Jobs I have had in my life (include unpaid if you have to):
Graffitti Paint over volunteer, Intel Corporation technician, FX Motorsports Development technician

Three Places I Have Lived:
Waipahu HI, Bay Area CA, Las Vegas NV

Three TV Shows that I watch:
River Monsters, Worlds Deadliest Catch, Whale Wars

Three places I have been:
Pillippines, Pitsburgh, BC Canada

Three People that e-mail me regularly
Faith, Heather, Reiko

Three of my favorite foods
Kare-Kare, Poke, Shoyu Chicken

Three cars I have driven:
87 Toyota Camry, 90 Honda Civic, 95 Honda Civic

Three things I am looking forward to:
Winter, Job Interviews, Next Quarter

greed is good week 6 EOC

Greed is good
EOC Week6
Business Law
In any field in any business, if you are an expert on a subject, it gives you a certain amount advantage over normal people. So be it. Greed is good in an enterprise and worldwide sense. The owner ship of materials or currency itself is with the element of Greed. Experts will use what they know in order to gain most prophet. No matter who loses. I con concur that it is not always about having enough, rather its about doing more. A venture capitalists only concern is to venture out into the global market and capitalizing on any and all prophets that may come along.
Performance bonuses are sometimes extreme. And in many cases the only people who will benefit from them are the some people who created them. These are usually people who are high up the food chain. The non laborers. Whatever happened to compensating the people who actually ran a business? I believe the performance bonuses should have a cap on some sort based on a dollar amount and not on percentage. These people who create these bonuses can already picture the amount because they are experts at what they do. It gives them a compeling reason to follow through with a particular plan, often neglecting the cream of the crop laborers.
In all I have mixed feelings with this subject. I believe that greed is good only with the correct principles and morals in place. It may be the underlying driving force in propelling a worldwide enterprise but who is to know when it is enough? Greed is only good in the right hands. There has to be a balance in it to where compensation is without ridiculous performance bonuses. Its sad to know that in America the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.