|
===========================================================
Oral argument previews:
Prepared by the liibulletin editorial board:
< http://www.law.cornell.edu/bulletin/04board.htm >
===========================================================
In Granholm v. Heald (the Granholm, Swedenburg, and Michigan Beer
cases, to be argued Dec. 7, the Supreme Court considers how much
power the Twenty-First Amendment grants states to regulate the
importation of alcoholic beverages. The cases deal with states
that bar out-of-state companies from shipping alcohol directly
to in-state customers. Such states generally require liquor
distribution through licensed in-state wholesalers. The Twenty-
First Amendment, which explicitly declares that transporting
liquor into a state "in violation of the laws thereof, is
hereby prohibited," would seem to grant states wide leeway to
regulate the importation of alcohol. However, the Commerce
Clause specifically grants Congress, not the states, the power
to "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the
several States." For centuries, courts have read the Commerce
Clause as preventing states from interfering with interstate
commerce. The states claim that they are simply trying to
regulate the liquor market, collect all applicable taxes and
make sure alcohol stays out of minors' hands, but the
plaintiffs, who include liquor interests and consumers, accuse
the states of protecting their local industries, in violation
of the Commerce Clause.
< http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/03-1116.html >
Ashcroft v. Raich, argued November 30, raises the issue of
whether Congress's ability to regulate interstate commerce
allows it to proscribe the use of medical marijuana. The
Court will determine whether the use of California-grown
medical marijuana substantially effects interstate commerce
based on the four-factor balancing test established in United
States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), and refined in United
States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000). Though none of the
factors are particularly weighty in the present case, the
majority of them point to Congress' ability to regulate this
activity and the Court is likely to overturn the Ninth
Circuit's preliminary injunction.
< http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/03-1454.html >
In Rousey v. Jacoway, argued December 1, the Court will
answer the question of whether or not individual retirement
accounts are exempt from bankruptcy estates under 11 U.S.C.
522(d)(10)(E), which provides that any funds paid under a
pension or similar plans or contracts on account of illness,
disability, age, length of service or various other
conditions may be exempt from the bankruptcy estate and thus
from the reach of debtors.
< http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/03-1407.html >
------------------------------------------------------------------
These and all other recent Supreme Court decisions are
archived in full text at http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/
(in hypertext versions prepared by the LII and the original PDF
files received from the Court)
Help support this free service: http://www.law.cornell.edu/donors/
You are currently subscribed to liibulletin as:
bernie@fantasyfarm.com To unsubscribe send a blank email to
leave-liibulletin-8290T@lists.law.cornell.edu. Alternatively, you can visit
http://liibulletin.law.cornell.edu to end or alter your
subscription or to share this resource with others.
|
| |
| |
Thomas R. Bruce wrote:
===========================================================
Oral argument previews:
Prepared by the liibulletin editorial board:
< http://www.law.cornell.edu/bulletin/04board.htm >
===========================================================
....
Ashcroft v. Raich, argued November 30, raises the issue of
whether Congress's ability to regulate interstate commerce
allows it to proscribe the use of medical marijuana. The
Court will determine whether the use of California-grown
medical marijuana substantially effects interstate commerce
based on the four-factor balancing test established in United
States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), and refined in United
States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000). Though none of the
factors are particularly weighty in the present case, the
majority of them point to Congress' ability to regulate this
activity and the Court is likely to overturn the Ninth
Circuit's preliminary injunction.
< http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/03-1454.html >
I must be missing something. If Congress has already
banned interstate commerce in marijuana, how can
intrastate commerce in marijuana affect interestate
commerce?
--
This account is subject to a persistent MS Blaster and SWEN attack.
I think I've got the problem resolved, but, if you E-mail me
and it bounces, a second try might work.
However, please reply in newsgroup.
|
| |
| |
by caged animals.
To explain how these symptoms arise from deprivation with respect to
the power process:
Common-sense understanding of human nature tells one that lack of
goals whose attainment requires effort leads to boredom and that
boredom, long continued, often leads eventually to depression. Failure
to obtain goals leads to frustration and lowering of self-esteem.
Frustration leads to anger, anger to aggression, often in the form of
spouse or child abuse. It has been shown that long-continued
frustration commonly leads to depression and that depression tends to
cause guilt, sleep disorders, eating disorders and bad feelings about
oneself. Those who are tending toward depression seek pleasure as an
antidote; hence insatiable hedonism and excessive sex, with
perversions as a means of getting new kicks. Boredom too tends to
cause excessive pleasure-seeking since, lacking other goals, people
often use pleasure as a goal. See accompanying diagram. The foregoing
is a simplification. Reality is more complex, and of course
deprivation with respect to the power process is not the ONLY cause of
the symptoms described. By the way, when we mention depression we do
not necessarily mean depression that is severe enough to be treated by
a psychiatrist. Often only mild forms of depression are involved. And
when we speak of goals we do not necessarily mean long-term, thought
out goals. For many or most people through much of human history, the
goals of a hand-to-mouth existence (merely providing oneself and one's
family with food from day to day) have been quite sufficient.
7. (Paragraph 52) A partial exception may be made for a few passiv
|
| |
| |
would not have been
accepted. If they had been accepted and published, they probably would
not have attracted many readers, because it's more fun to watch the
entertainment put out by the media than to read a sober essay. Even if
these writings had had many readers, most of these readers would soon
have forgotten what they had read as their minds were flooded by the
mass of material to which the media expose them. In order to get our
message before the public with some chance of making a lasting
impression, we've had to kill people.
97. Constitutional rights are useful up to a point, but they do not
serve to guarantee much more than what could be called the bourgeois
conception of freedom. According to the bourgeois conception, a "free"
man is essentially an element of a social machine and has only a
certain set of prescribed and delimited freedoms; freedoms that are
designed to serve the needs of the social machine more than those of
the individual. Thus the bourgeois's "free" man has economic freedom
because that promotes growth and progress; he has freedom of the press
because public criticism restrains misbehavior by political leaders;
he has a rights to a fair trial because imprisonment at the whim of
the powerful would be bad for the system. This was clearly the
attitude of Simon Bolivar. To him, people deserved liberty only if
they used it to promote progress (progress as conceived by the
|
| |
| |
Arthur L. Rubin wrote:
I must be missing something. If Congress has already
banned interstate commerce in marijuana, how can
intrastate commerce in marijuana affect interestate
commerce?
Just because it's illegal doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
The argument is that a California patient growing and using his own
marijuana locally under a doctor's prescription will somehow (I
suppose because the person is presumed to use it illegally if he
didn't qualify medically) reduce demand in the interstate illegal
marijuana market. In that case, it would affect the illegal
interstate commerce in marijuana, so Congress has the right to make it
even more illegal.
Stu
|
| |
| |
|
