John Roberts on States’ Rights
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
October 6th, 2005 at 11:47 am
Kevin seems to think that this tells us less about Roberts’ stance on states’ rights, and more about his view of the commerce clause.
Either way, it’ll be interesting to see if his overarching views expressed here remain consistent when a conservative pet issue comes before him instead of a liberal one.
October 6th, 2005 at 1:29 pm
They will not give an inch on States rights. This could give way to bigger things such as madical marijuana and they will not allow it.
October 6th, 2005 at 3:42 pm
Tgirsch, I’m a little puzzled by that comment. Aren’t the states’ rights and commerce clause issues pretty much one and the same? The supremacy clause is not in dispute, so to the extent the federal government can regulate X under the guise of the commerce clause, any “rights” the states may want to assert against the federal government are meaningless.
October 7th, 2005 at 4:37 pm
“Aren’t the states’ rights and commerce clause issues pretty much one and the same? ”
Similiar, certainly, but not quite. The question of federalism has, as one of its parts, the question of who is allowed to determine the regulation of particular economic activity, but it is not the whole of the matter.
The feds are not saying that the law is not allowed becasue it confilcts with a federal outlawing assisted suicide. they are arguing that perscription drugs fall under the purview of the FDA, since they are part of interstate commerce. It’s the same reasoning they used in the medical marijunna case, with the exception that pot is a Schedule I, and so has no legal purpose under federal law, and the drugs in question here are Schedule II and thus legal with a prescription. So I don’t read the Feds as saying that the states do not have the right to regulate this themselves, only that the feds have the right to step in and prevent this because it affects interstate commerce through the vector of prescription drugs. So the feds are meerely asserting an already existing right, not claiming that the states are always subservient in this matter, whihc would be a trueer argument agaisnt states’ rights, in my mind.
I THINK, btw, that the law in question allows for doctors to prescribe Schedule II drugs at their discretion, and so the feds shoulds lose. But Roberts and the other conservative son the bench hate the idea of people making those choices for themselves, so they will vote agaisn
October 7th, 2005 at 4:38 pm
You know, I am the wrost typistin the history of typing. I should get some sort of plaque. With typos.
October 9th, 2005 at 1:09 am
Kevin, that’s exactly my point. The whole question of whether the regulation of these drugs falls within the purview of the FDA is the same as whether, and to what extent, Congress can regulate them under the Commerce Clause. To the extent Congress can regulate, and does so in conflict with the states, Congress (or the FDA, or whatever other federal agency Congress has authorized) wins every time, and state “rights” are illusory.