judicial tyranny

Justin Schwartz jkschw at hotmail.com
Mon May 14 21:54:28 PDT 2001

Pardon me for being a bore, but marijuana _is_ a controlled substance under 21 USC 812, Schedule I(b)(10) ("marihuana"), and the SCt has jurisdiction to interpret Congress' legislation (however dumb) about such substances. Moreover, it's clear that state law regulating mj is not preempted, so this is not a federalism issue. For what it is worth, I think the SCt's opinion is probably right in tracking Congress' intentions, although the 9C opinion that was overturned was a tolerable reading of the text. --jks

>From: "Nathan Newman" <nathan at newman.org>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
>Subject: Re: judicial tyranny
>Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 13:17:20 -0400
>So much for federalism. The Court has said that the federal government has
>no jurisdiction to prevent rape (striking down provisions of the Violence
>Against Women Act in the Morrison case) or stop the sale of guns near
>schools (Lopez), but has full jurisdiction to stop dying patients from
>taking marijuana.
>-- Nathan
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Doug Henwood" <dhenwood at panix.com>
>To: "lbo-talk" <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
>Sent: Monday, May 14, 2001 12:39 PM
>Subject: judicial tyranny
>[yet another reason to despise the Supreme Court]
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

More information about the lbo-talk mailing list