Raich vs. Gonzales: A Sidenote

Oops! Actually, I think that should be "Gonzales vs. Raich." Anyway, I've already left trackbacks and changing the title in Blogger will goof these up, so I'll leave it as is.

On thinking about the recent Gonzales vs. Raich decision on medical marijuana by the Supreme Court, an interesting implication with regards to states' rights occurred to me.

Awhile back, when fisking Pejman Yousefzadeh, I noted:

The phrase "States['] Rights" comes to mind. ... [L]egalization of marijuana, ... would certainly be easier in some states if this matter were left to them to decide. But what might the religious right get out of [uniting with the fiscal conservatives]? A chance to ban abortion .... "But doesn't that mean some states would become able to tell a woman what to do with her own body?" you might ask. "And doesn't this contradict the very idea of individual rights, and thus of freedom?" Yousefzadeh will cut you off at this point, yelling, "Extremist."

And would the "marriage" end once states['] rights had, Christ-like, risen from the dead? I think the Libertarians would be in for a rude awakening (or at least an abrupt interruption in their supply chain of weed) on that score. They'd be in favor of (I can't resist this next word) defending the "marriage". But the Christians would legalize pot anywhere over their cold, dead bodies. But no. The marriage would not end. It would be annulled. It would be like the marriage had never existed! If need be, the Christians would find other allies. Abortion would become illegal. And marijuana would stay that way.

The overly-generous interpretation of the Commerce Clause by the Supreme Court in this decision completely quashes states' rights, not to mention the more fundamental individual variety. This is quite true, but it is not my point. Many others have already said this. What I will point out is how this ruling could quite easily lead to abuses of federal power.

Recall what I said above about how hostile the religionists are to the notion of legalizing marijuana and yet how they wish to use a states' rights type of argument to ban abortion in some states (link in block quote above). This Supreme Court decision gives them the mechanism to run pell-mell over any legislation based on a states' rights argument they happen not to like, such as permission to use marijuana for medicinal purposes.

As The General points out, the decision in Gonzales vs. Raich was based on an earlier precedent, but this earlier precedent was from a case dealing with the actions of one man. This case essentially nullifies a state law and, in doing so, the notion of states' rights.

While I hold that, ordinarily, states' rights merely pertain to small matters not bearing on individual liberty (such as thinly-populated Nebraska having a unicameral legislature or Louisiana having a legal system based on the Napoleonic Code rather than English Common Law), it is conceivable that the legal concept could make some states havens of freedom in some matters when a federal law is wrong. No! Wait! Actually, that was indeed the case in California with medical marijuana.

Indeed, conflicts such as this would, in a better world, result in cases reaching the Supreme Court, which would then have the task of deciding whether the state law or the conflicting federal law was in violation of individual rights. Well, the case did reach the Supreme Court, but its dangerous ruling was a blow to states' rights and was based on anything but the protection of individual rights.

We have lost a check on governmental power here and gained a new mechanism for any tyrannical party to abuse federal power.

-- CAV

Updates

6-11-05: Added note to beginning.