WWW.RIDESIDE.NET

home | about | tracker | comics

reply to the comment you are replying too

tracker / 2004 / 11

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-11-29 16:01:08 +0000

Our Supreme Court

Says it will [url=http://news.bostonherald.com/national/view.bg?articleid=56339] NOT hear a challenge [/url]to Massachusett's gay mariage. But will listen to [url=http://www.freep.com/news/nw/scotus29e_20041129.htm] a challenge to the conflict [/url] between that California law and a 1970 federal ban on marijuana. A good day for freedom?....
Posted by tgl on 2004-11-30 05:10:46 +0000
Not so fast: States' Rights Defense Falters... I love how Scalia basically says, "I disagree with Wickard, however, I'll base my nay vote in this case on it." Can someone explain to me how an illicit, black market product grown for personal use, not-for-sale intra- or inter-state can be adjudicated as an economic activity? It's not legal for you to profit from it, so how does the Court decide they can make a ruling on this item on grounds that it's a marketable product?
E-mail to tgl@rideside.net to add your tumblr.
Find me on github.