Gonzales v raich 2005 case brief. Gonzales v. Raich Case Brief 2019-02-16

Gonzales v raich 2005 case brief Rating: 8,5/10 689 reviews

Gonzales V. Raich Case Brief Essay

gonzales v raich 2005 case brief

Lopez, supra, at 559—567; see also Morrison, supra, at 609—613. This is in accordance with the fact that they use the marijuana for medical purpose. Despite the failure of this claim as well as subsequent litigation and legislative efforts, Raich and Monson continue to use marijuana for private medical purposes. Monson suffered from pain and muscle spasms around her spine after a car accident, and she used marijuana to alleviate those symptoms. Raich's doctor stated that she would be in extreme, life-threatening pain if she did not use the marijuana as allowed under the California Compassionate Use Act. It identified 42 opiates, 22 opium derivatives, and 17 hallucinogenic substances as Schedule I drugs.

Next

Gonzales v Raich case brief Essay

gonzales v raich 2005 case brief

Lopez makes clear that possession is not itself commercial activity. Moreover, as discussed in more detail above, Congress did make findings regarding the effects of intrastate drug activity on interstate commerce. The California Legislature recently enacted additional legislation supplementing the Compassionate Use Act. By this measure, I think the regulation must be sustained. See Darby, supra, at 121. Another California resident, Diane Monson, grew six marijuana plants that were destroyed in a raid by federal officials from the Drug Enforcement Administration. And it appears to reason that when an interstate market for a commodity exists, regulating the intrastate manufacture or possession of that commodity is constitutional either because that intrastate activity is itself economic, or because regulating it is a rational part of regulating its market.


Next

Brief Gonzales V. Raich

gonzales v raich 2005 case brief

The Drug Enforcement Administration defendant lost the case. See generally Lopez, 514 U. In my view, allowing Congress to set the terms of the constitutional debate in this way, i. It was very clear that there was no commerce that had undergone in the course of the marijuana usage by the California Medical Co-op. Lopez and Morrison did not indicate that the constitutionality of federal regulation depends on superficial and formalistic distinctions.

Next

Gonzales v. Raich (2005)

gonzales v raich 2005 case brief

R 621 Parties: Werner E. We have never required Congress to legislate with scientific exactitude. Contributors Spring 2016: Brenae Mims, Nichole Lyday, Miranda Mendicino, Shakendra Fullmore Footer Content. Distinguishing our earlier cases holding that comprehensive regulatory statutes may be validly applied to local conduct that does not, when viewed in isolation, have a significant impact on interstate commerce, we held the statute invalid. Congress must exercise its authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause in a manner consistent with basic constitutional principles. Without the drugs derived from marijuana, there would be so much pain experienced by the patients and death could result from those pains.

Next

GONZALES V. RAICH

gonzales v raich 2005 case brief

Unsympathetic to the government's arguments that the Commerce Clause gave it the authority to regulate in this area, the Ninth Circuit granted a preliminary injunction to prevent interference with Raich and Monson. United States, , 417, n. Whitebread, The Marijuana Conviction 154—174 1999 ; L. Given the enforcement difficulties that attend distinguishing between marijuana cultivated locally and marijuana grown elsewhere, 21 U. Lopez, , and United States v. It was then reestablished in 1813 and was very successful.

Next

Gonzales v Raich case brief Essay

gonzales v raich 2005 case brief

Dissenting Opinion Thomas Justice Thomas wrote a Dissenting opinion. §922 b 1 1988 ed. Well-settled law controls our answer. Moreover, the Court emphasized that the laws at issue in Lopez and Morrison had nothing to do with “commerce” or any sort of economic enterprise. For instance, here, if California and other States are effectively regulating medical marijuana users, then these users have little effect on the interstate drug trade. Rule — Federal Controlled Substance Act prevents them from possessing, obtaining or manufacturing cannabis for their personal medical use.


Next

Gonzales v. Raich (2005)

gonzales v raich 2005 case brief

Moreover, the Framers understood what the majority does not appear to fully appreciate: There is a danger to concentrating too much, as well as too little, power in the Federal Government. While the statute provided for the periodic updating of the five schedules, Congress itself made the initial classifications. Thus the case for the exemption comes down to the claim that a locally cultivated product that is used domestically rather than sold on the open market is not subject to federal regulation. California law does not really affect our answer to that question for it is well-settled that the outer limits of congressional power under the Commerce Clause are defined exclusively by federal law. Monson grows her own cannabis. Majority Opinion Stevens Justice Stevens wrote the majority opinion, which was joined by Justices Kennedy, Breyer, Souter, and Ginsburg. On December 3, 2003 the court of Appeals ruled in favor of Raich and Monson, stating the actions of the federal government were unconstitutional.

Next

Gonzales v. Raich

gonzales v raich 2005 case brief

In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress’ commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity. The similarities between this case and Wickard are striking. Of course it is in addition difficult to imagine what intelligible scheme of regulation of the interstate market in guns could have as an appropriate means of effectuation the prohibition of guns within 1000 feet of schools and nowhere else. We accordingly vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals. Instead, the majority opinion in Gonzales v.

Next