Once more into the Fourth Amendment breach, dear friends! (1 Viewer)

[Inkspot47]

PROTECTING THE PRIVACY OF POT

Wed Nov 15, 8:03 PM ET


Once more into the Fourth Amendment breach, dear friends! In the pending case of Florida v. Rabb , the Supreme Court has a splendid opportunity to affirm the maxim that a man's house is his home -- and that he has a right to grow a passel of pot in his attic.

Well, not exactly. By taking the case -- or better yet, by not taking it -- the high court could strike a blow for strict enforcement of a constitutional freedom as old as Magna Carta. These are the facts:
In April 2002, an anonymous informant advised the Broward County sheriff's office that someone was growing marijuana in a residence on Polk Street in Hollywood. The informant, obviously well-informed, identified the urban agronomist as a white male, 35 years of age. Thus prepared, the cops went to the specified address, taking a sniffing dog with them. The dog's name was Chevy. His age does not appear in the record......

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucjk/20061116/cm_ucjk/protectingtheprivacyofpot

We're all guilty until proven innocent

 

[tomwaits]

Sorry you have already lost....

Nobody cares about the Bill of Rights anymore (read, special interest groups that provide all of the campaign contributions to the congressmen don't give a **** about the Bill of Rights.)

The states have no more rights according to the "Supreme Court's ruling" Gonzales v. Raich. I guess all of you Democrats and Republicans want (like the parties do) the federal gov to have supreme control over the states. The state reps and gov's can just hope to become national politicians and weild more power and get more loibbyist money for the "campaigns".

The case of Raich and Monson against the government

Angel Raich of Oakland, California, Diane Monson of Oroville, California, and two anonymous caregivers sued the government for injunctive and declaratory relief on October 9, 2002 to stop the government from interfering with their right to produce and use medical marijuana claiming that the Controlled Substances Act was not constitutional as applied to their conduct.

They claimed the seizure was a violation of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which grants the federal government the power to regulate "commerce," but only commerce that occurs "among the several States," with foreign countries, and "with the Indian tribes." Raich argued that her possession and consumption of medical marijuana was not commerce. Neither she nor Monson paid for their marijuana, and neither obtained it from another state. The soil, seeds, nutrients, and lumber used to grow the marijuana were obtained within California.

Angel Raich claimed she used marijuana to keep herself alive. She and her doctor claimed to have tried dozens of prescription medicines for her numerous medical conditions, and that she was allergic to most of them. Her doctor declared under oath that Raich's life was at stake if she could not continue to use marijuana. Diane Monson suffered from chronic pain due to a car accident a decade before the case. She used marijuana to relieve the pain and muscle spasms around her spine.

The government's case

The United States Federal law, via the Controlled Substances Act, does not recognize and opposes medical marijuana. Agents from the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) were assigned to break up California's medical marijuana co-ops and seize their assets. This activity was the result of the belief that federal law preempted that of California. The government also argued that if a single exception was made to the Controlled Substances Act, it would become unenforceable in practice. The government also contended that consuming one's locally grown marijuana for medical purposes affects the interstate market of marijuana, and hence that the federal government may regulate—and prohibit—such consumption.

I don't gove a crap about marijuana. I just don't want the feds to say that because you produced product in your own state, taht affects interstate commerce. IF WE ACCEPT THIS, THEN IT MEANS THE FEDS CAN DO ANYTHING THEY WANT.

Legal briefs were filed and oral argument occurred on November 29, 2004 (transcript). The 6-3 decision, written by Justice Stevens, was issued on June 6, 2005. It upheld the validity of Controlled Substances Act as an exercise of federal power because Congress "could have rationally concluded that the aggregate impact on the national market of all the transactions exempted from federal supervision is unquestionably substantial." The majority did not address the substantive due process claims raised by the respondents.

The Commerce Clause was the main issue. Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce includes power to regulate:

* channels of interstate commerce.
* instrumentalities of interstate commerce.
* activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.


From what I have read, most of you want the feds to control everything. I wish you had a better understanding of beurocracy. I also with you knew economics more. We should have competition between the states. Competition is good. It does not care about gov intervention and pushes towards the good of the consumer.

 

[Inkspot47]

Kyllo protested that the thermal imaging violated his constitutional rights. The lower federal courts turned him down: The imaging was not an "unreasonable search" under the Fourth Amendment. He appealed. In an unusual alignment of justices, the Supreme Court reversed, 5-4.

At least the SC decided that thermal imaging your house is unconstitutional, No?

 

[JimEverett]

This case has no bearing on states' rights at all - it appearing the Florida courts based their suppression of the evidence on the U.S. Constitution.