So, a 6-3 decision with Rehnquist, O'Connor and Thomas dissenting.
First, the majority (all except Scalia) say that it is clearly in the power of Congress via the commerce clause to regulate anything that might have some effect on "commerce," even if it is wholly intrastate. In the opnion, Stevens reaffirms Wickard v. Filburn (SOB!) and pretty much says "If you don't like it, use the democratic process." I was under the impression that the state of CA had done exactly that by enacting their referendum. In whole, the majority sees no fundamental differences between Wickard and Gonzales and so rules predictably for the federal government.
Whether you agree with the use of medical marijuana or not is immaterial. This case was about federalism and states rights and the states lost big time.
I know I have a reputation as a big-time libertarian; over the past several years I have been drifting more towards a federalist way of thinking. That is, states can pretty much do what they want as they have police powers. The federal gov't on the other hand has (sort of) enumerated powers, none of which are the police powers. If a state wants to outlaw narcotics, drugs or alcohol that ok; the federal gov't cannot without a constitutional amendment. However, under decisions like Wickard and Gonzales the Court has granted the federal gov't unlimited powers through the commerce clause.
The dissenting minority in this case have it right I think. The Court needs to revisit Wickard and overturn its poor jurisprudence and perhaps (one can hope) return to Lochner-era economic decisions.
For a good review of the case and opinions go here
I am curious what everyone else thinks about this case.
