diffopinion

Gonzalez vs. Raich

I was very interested in this case. For years, I have been an Interstate Commerce Clause interpretation fanatic. Even before the decision was made public, I knew about Wickard vs. Filburn, United States vs. Lopez, and United States vs. Morrison. I am not a lawyer. (I am of a higher class: engineer.) But one need not be a lawyer to understand the abuse of interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. Incidentally, it does take a law degree to spew the B.S. justifications for the abuse of the Interstate commerce clause.

Interstate Commerce is business that crosses state lines. Lawyers out there will correct me in my definition, but there correction changes little. Back in 1942 with Wickard vs. Filburn, the Supreme Court said something could be considered interstate commerce if it had an effect on interstate commerce. Boy! What a loophole!

Then, in the mid 90’s, the Federal Government passed a law creating gun free zones around public schools. The problem is how to justify it. Police powers are a state issue. So, the government used the old cure all… you guessed it… the interstate commerce clause.

The government came up with this: kids who go to public school may one day work in the area of interstate commerce. Hence, guns around schools have an effect on interstate commerce. This is obviously pretty awful logic. Here is the big difference between engineers and lawyers two groups I consider to be polar opposites. Lawyers make their arguments to produce a desired outcome. Engineers make their arguments in order to find the truth. Otherwise, things fall apart, blow up, etc… There is no way an engineer can look at this logic and not laugh. However, lawyers being of a lower caste can say this with a straight face.

The Supreme Court rejected the argument but only 5-4. And now with Kennedy getting more and more loopy, one wonders if the votes are there in the future to hold back the federal government.

The Morrison case had to do with the violence against women. Here lies the rub. It is difficult to discuss these cases because the discussion withers into “why would you want guns around schools” or “why are you for violence against women”. You see the problem.

What is different about the Gonzalez case involving medical marijuana is that there is a sympathetic case against the Federal government intrusion. Hence, one need not understand the Interstate Commerce Clause to be against Federal Law trumping State Law.

So remember:

When it comes to cases decided upon the Interstate Commerce Clause, one’s support or non-support for a decision usually has nothing to do with one’s personal view about the law.

posted by DRL @ 10:56 AM