Gonzales v. Raich (2005)??
Gonzales v. Raich (2005), Justices Scalia and Kennedy departed from their previous positions as parts of the Lopez and Morrison majorities to uphold a federal law regarding marijuana. The court found the federal law valid, although the marijuana in question had been grown and consumed within a single state, and had never entered interstate commerce. Is this not a violation of the commerce clause?? If the marijuana never crossed state lines then how can congress control it under the commerce clause. According to the Tenth Amendment, the federal government of the United States has the power to regulate only matters specifically delegated to it by the Constitution. Other powers are reserved to the States, or to the people. Justice Clarence Thomas argued that allowing Congress to regulate intrastate, noncommercial activity under the Commerce Clause would confer on Congress a general “police power” over the Nation. How is this not an intrastate noncommerical activity??
- zuccaLv 61 decade agoBest Answer
The Court upheld the constitutionality of the Fed law because of the case's analogy to Wickard v. Filburn, in which regulation of farming homegrown wheat for use at home, seemingly a solely private & local activity, was still constitutional because the purpose of the Fed law in place was to limit wheat production & set quotas to stabilize the market, and even though an individual growing something for personal use was a small effect, the Court looked to the cumulative effect on the market (person growing it is using it at home instead of buying wheat or selling the surplus across state lines, so still affects interstate commerce). So, if they allowed the home-grown wheat in that case, it would have threatened Congress’ ability to regulate the wheat market with that law. Similarly, in Gonzales, Congress' ability to shut the illegal drug market down would be injured/threatened if any activity around the production/consumption of marijuana were allowed, so the law was upheld.
- Anonymous3 years ago
Gonzales V Raich SummarySource(s): https://shrinke.im/a9oWS
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Sadly...it's still marijuana..and sadly, still illegal. THis is the foundation of the ruling.