Today, the Supreme Court handed down a decision in "Gonzales v. Raich", namely, ruling that the "commerce clause" of the Constitution (which states that the Congress can regulate interstate commerce) allows the US Congress to pass laws regarding entirely intrastate activities if they may affect interstate commerce. In this specific case, Congress has the authority to ban state approved medical marijuana. While I support medical marijuana, and in fact repealing most drug bans, what is most frightening in this case is actually the 60 year old case which was the primary influence of this decision: Wickard v. Filburn (1942).
In that case, Congress put into place limits on how much wheat people could grow in a misguided attempt to stablize the market. The farmer in question planted more than his alotment for his personal use. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court ruled that because if enough people grew their own grain, it would impact the interstate market, Congress had the authority to regulate it.
Talk about an activist court! 60 years ago they put "what if everyone did it?" into law! With that sort of precedent, there is absolutely no limit on what Congress can do. And yet, the Radical Right is going to be trumpeting this as a victory for their puritanical moralism, blind to the glaring hypocrisy of their complaints about judicial activism. The Constitution says Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce. It does not say that they have the authority to take draconian steps to make sure that any particular commerce has the ability to be regulated. The 1942 decision basically said that "if everyone grows their own wheat, there won't be an interstate market, so we can limit that activity to make sure there is one".
And we wonder why we've lost the self reliance we once had.
Not that I actually think that the Wickard decision had a significant impact on people wanting to grow their own wheat, but it was a big step in turning a limited federal government into the huge, dictatorial, nanny state that we have today.
In this case, what opponents are really afraid of is that if people in California, Oregon and the other states that have legalized it, get away with it and show that it's not the boogy man the Puritans want us to believe it is, all the other states will do it too.
The one "legitimate" concern the feds have is that they'll have a hard time telling where any given marijuana came from when it crosses the border, but given the way marijuana farms are hidden now, I can't believe it'll really be any harder. In fact, with modern technology, both the chemical and biological properties can be matched to its source, and if anyone really is diverting it from an openly grown source, it's not going to be hard to find it.
I"ve said it before and I'll say it again: this country has to decide if it really wants to be free or not. Well, not really: people can keep ignoring the issue as they do now, and let the chains grow shorter and shorter, until suddenly the chains stop *them* from doing the things *they* want to, and wonder how we got to that state. This decision is a roadmap.
I did just make it to Senater Morse's Town Hall on Civil Unions tonight. It was an overflow crowd that appeared to me to be about 2/3 in favor and 1/3 opposed. Here are my responses to a few of the points raised in opposition:
Choice or Biology:
It doesn't matter one iota whether it's choice or not. The fact is that people are highly variable: for some it is a "choice", in that they are attracted to both sexes. For many, it's not, but in any case, if you are in a relationship now, or have been, did you *choose* who you fell in love with, or were even just attracted to? For most people, something just clicked and that was it. But if you believe in Freedom, it doesn't matter.
Love:
Someone actually had the audacity to claim that same-sex love wasn't real love. I have no clue what they think real love is, but I'm glad I'm not that narrow minded. Regardless though, does anyone really want anyone else trying to tell them whether or not they're really in love? Much less the *government*?
What's best for the children:
Despite much evidence to the contrary, many still believe that a traditional "nuclear" family is better than a family with same-sex parents. Never the less, those families *do* exist. Their solution is to make life even *harder* for these families? There is very broken logic here. And if they want to get into having government enforce who makes good parents or not, well, that is an extremely frightening path indeed, and least of all for gay and lesbian parents.
Freedom and tolerance:
Obviously, the limit of freedom is when you start to interfere with someone else's freedom. Without isolating yourself entirely, that "interference" cannot include mere exposure to differences. One of the most common objections I've heard when this subject comes up is "if we allow that, then we have to allow pedophilia etc". Are people *really* that clueless about what Freedom really means? Actually, in this case, I have to believe it's willful ignorance, but I'll dress it anyhow: pedophilia and the other strawmen raised are obviously a violation of the child's freedom (or someone else's if not pedophilia), and are not valid exercises of freedom.
I don't want my children exposed to that:
There are a lot of things many parents try to shield their children from. Doing so usually has the opposite of the intended effect (there's nothing more desirable than the forbidden fruit), though I've never understood the desire to shield children from love. The fact is though is that it's the perfect opportunity to teach your children your values. They're going to grow up in a diverse world unless we end up with a very draconian future. The sooner you start teaching them to deal with it, the longer you'll have to work with them imparting your values. Obviously, I hope you teach them to be loving and accepting, but even if not, the point is still valid.
Rights vs Responsibility:
Someone mentioned that everyone wants rights, but no one wants responsibility. All to true, but then why is he arguing against civil unions, in which the rights *do* come with attached responsibility?
Reverse Discrimination and Hate:
Someone commented that they feel discriminated against because of their conservative values. I'm sorry to hear that, but "welcome to the club". The way to fight that is not to try to keep others from being treated equally, but the reverse: work for true equality and freedom. The reason that you feel hated is because the most visible people with your values have done their damndest to oppress everyone who disagrees with them. I grew up mildly religious, and even briefly felt strongly religious. I know that the vast majority of religious people are really nice, well meaning people.
But the more and more I see of what religious values mean in practice, their actual effect on the world as driven by the most vocal followers: the narrow mindedness, the psychological damage done to people, the violence it incites --- the more I realize that I couldn't have come up with a more effective tool of the devil than organized religion. It teaches people to be sheep and follow others because they say so or someone once said so, rather than to think about it and follow the teachings because they're *right*. I'm sorry, but we've learned how to cook pork and shellfish in the intervening millenia, and we've realized that women can make a valuable contribution to the world besides increasing the population. At least many of us have.
That said, I practice what *I* preach: if you want to grow a long beard and not eat pork, if your wife wants to be the obedient, subserviant, servant of the house, you should no more be discriminated against than should a same-sex couple or a Morman clan. If you want a public religious display, make sure that *all* religions (and the anti-religious) have the right to put up displays as well. If you want to pray in public places, make sure that those who want to may make the prayers of their own choosing, that it is not disruptive or imposed on those who don't want to do it at all.
In short, practice freedom and equality, and *everyone* wins.