by Kerry
Thomas
May 14, 2011
Have you ever heard of the case of Gonzales v. Raich (03-1454)? If not, you should take the time to learn
about it, because the outcome of that Supreme Court case is about to impact
every American, as ObamaCare winds it’s way to the Supreme Court.
On it’s face, the Gonzales case was about
medical use of marijuana. Yet the
effect of the ruling in that case, with respect to the Interstate Commerce
Clause of the U.S. Constitution, is frighteningly detrimental to Liberty.
Agents of the Drug Enforcement Agency entered
the property of Diane Monson and seized and destroyed six
cannabis plants. The plants had been
given to her, and her doctor had legally prescribed, within the State of
California, her use of the plants for medicinal purposes. There was no commerce, as there was no
transaction, and nothing left the State of California to trigger the
“interstate” commerce clause.
On June 6, 2005, in a 6-3 decision, the Court
declared, essentially, that State-approved medical use of marijuana violates
the Controlled Substances Act, and is, therefore, illegal in the United States,
despite 11 States passing laws which decriminalized the practice.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas
warned us about the impact of this ruling.
“Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use
marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state
lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for
marijuana.”
“If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything—and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.”
Justice Thomas went on. “If the Federal Government can regulate
growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it
is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate
commerce), then Congress’ Article I powers—as expanded by the Necessary and
Proper Clause—have no meaningful limits.”
Thomas continued. “If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government
may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout
the 50 States. This makes a mockery of
Madison’s assurance to the people of New York that the “powers delegated” to
the Federal Government are “few and defined,” while those
of the States are “numerous and indefinite.“
You see, the Gonzales case was not so much about
the use of marijuana, but the power of the federal government to dictate to the
States, and to the People thereof, what they may or may not do.
Despite the Constitution’s clear admonition that
the powers not specifically granted to the federal government by the
Constitution are rightfully reserved to the States, and to the People, by a
vote of 6-3 the Supreme Court allowed Congress to usurp still more Rights from
the States, and from you and me.
The key argument in the ObamaCare cases is
whether the federal government, under the Interstate Commerce Clause of the
Constitution, has the power to force you and me to buy insurance, to actually
engage in commerce, not because our actions or inactions actually are
interstate commerce, but because they are inextricably bound up with interstate
commerce.
As Justice Thomas warned, “If Congress can
regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually
anything.”