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):||14 December 2011|
|PDF File Size:||15.69 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||7.24 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Morrisonsupraat Thomas, J.
Gonzales v. Raich: Congress’s Power Under the Commerce Clause to Regulate Medical Marijuana
As an initial matter, the statutory challenges v.raicj issue in those cases were markedly different from the challenge respondents pursue in the case at hand. For example, cases such as Printz v. Both Justice Scalia’s concurring opinion and Justice Thomas’s dissenting opinion focused on the scope and import of the “Necessary and Proper” clause. WaltersF.
Yet as a resident of Oakland, she is entitled to possess up to 3 pounds of processed marijuana at any given time, nearly 20 times more than she uses on v.raichh weekly basis. The CSA is a statute that regulates the production, distribution, and consumption of commodities for which there is an established, and lucrative, interstate gnzales.
A number of noteworthy events precipitated this policy shift. It defines as economic any activity involving the production, distribution, and consumption of commodities.
WirtzU. HealdU. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana.
They are asserted without any supporting evidence—descriptive, statistical, or otherwise. Her doctor declared under oath  that Raich’s life was at stake if she could not continue to use marijuana. Its gonzaled, Hamid Opinlonnoted, “Cannabis is classified under international conventions as a drug with a number of personal and public health problems” and referred to the drug’s Schedule I status, under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs.
Nor do they contend that any provision or section of the CSA amounts to an unconstitutional exercise of congressional authority.
Lopezsupraat —; see also Morrisonsupraat — National Center for Biotechnology InformationU. The dissent also dismissed the Majority’s opiniin in Wickard opiinon. Most commercial goods or services have some sort of privately producible analogue.
In that case, Congress had supplied numerous findings regarding the impact gender-motivated violence had on the national economy. 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 would have on interstate commerce.
The Commerce Clause and Medical Marijuana: Gonzales v. Raich, U.S. 1 () | Canna Law Blog™
We therefore do not address the question whether judicial relief is available to respondents on these alternative bases. Angel Raich, a qualified medical cannabis patient, who was provided cannabis for medical use by two anonymous caregivers, used marijuana to treat her life-threatening chronic pain. We enforce the “outer limits” of Congress’ Commerce Clause authority not for their own sake, but to protect historic spheres of state sovereignty from excessive federal encroachment and thereby to maintain the distribution of power fundamental to our federalist system of government.
Incidents of the traffic which are not an integral part of the interstate or foreign flow, such as manufacture, local distribution, and possession, nonetheless have a substantial and direct effect upon interstate commerce because—.
The differences between the members of a class so defined and the principal traffickers in Schedule I substances might be sufficient to justify a policy decision exempting the narrower class from the coverage of the CSA. Unlike the power to regulate activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, the power to enact laws enabling effective regulation of interstate commerce can only be exercised in conjunction with congressional regulation of an interstate market, and it extends only to those measures necessary to make the interstate regulation effective.
The Commerce Clause and Medical Marijuana: Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005)
Supreme Court, which gonzaled ruled against Raich and Monson in a decision. In this regard, again, this case is readily distinguishable from Wickard. Despite the failure of this claim as well as subsequent litigation and legislative efforts, Raich and Monson continue to use marijuana for private medical purposes.
California has been a pioneer in the regulation of marijuana. We generally assume States enforce their laws, see Riley v.