Essay - Please give me feedback

[MAS117]

Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General, et al. v. Angel McClary Raich et al.

   
   On October 9th, 2002 Angel Raich and Diane Monson filed a lawsuit against the Government of the United States over the seizure of their medical cannabis (or marijuana) by the United States Drug Enforcement Agency. In 1996 the voters of California voted in favor of the Compassionate Use Act or Proposition 215 which legalized medical marijuana if prescribed by a medical doctor.
   The federal government’s case argues that of the Controlled Substances Act which makes all cannabis illegal for medical purposes or not. The Supremacy Clause of Article VI, Paragraph II states that, “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be Supreme Law of the land.” The government therefore believes that the Controlled Substances Act supersedes and trumps the Compassionate Use Act of California. The federal government also argue the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution which allows the government to “To regulate Commerce ... among the several States.”
   When first argued before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in 2003 Judge Martin J. Jenkins denied the motion for an injunction. It was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Appeals Court held in favor of Raich and issued an injunction saying that the DEA could not seize the marijuana from the property of Raich and Monson. The Ninth Circuit stated that, “We find that the appellants have demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on their claim that, as applied to them, the Controlled Substances Act is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress' Commerce Clause authority.”
   After the decision of the Ninth Circuit as described above the case was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on November 29th, 2004 and the decision of the court were released on June 6th, 2005.
   In a 6-3 decision the Supreme Court of the United States held that even with the Compassionate Use Act passed by the voters of California, the Congress could indeed ban medical marijuana pursuant to the Commerce Clause. The majority decision was delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens and joined by Justices Kennedy, Souter, Breyer, and Ginsberg. The dissenting opinion was delivered by Justice O’ Connor, and joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, and partially by Justice Thomas. Thomas also wrote a separate concurrence dissent, as did Justice Scalia.
   I wholeheartedly disagree with the majority decision delivered by the Supreme Court, which vacates the holding of the Ninth Circuit. The facts of this case are quite clear and the decisions in Raich can be compared with that of United States v. Morrison of 2000 and United States v. Lopez of 1995 where the Rehnquist court held that Congress did not have unlimited power under the Commerce Clause. In Lopez the court ruled that Lopez carrying a handgun did not affect the economy on a massive scale. Justice O’ Connor in the opening of her dissent began by citing Lopez and said the following, “Federalism promotes innovation by allowing for the possibility that “a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” Justice Scalia went on to note that, “This principle [Commerce Clause] is not without limitation. In Lopez and Morrison, the Court–conscious of the potential of the “substantially affects” test to “obliterate the distinction between what is national and what is local... “f we were to accept [such] arguments,” the Court reasoned in Lopez, “we are hard pressed to posit any activity by an individual that Congress is without power to regulate... Thus, although Congress’s authority to regulate intrastate activity that substantially affects interstate commerce is broad, it does not permit the Court to “pile inference upon inference,” Lopez, in order to establish that non-economic activity has a substantial effect on interstate commerce.”
   Using Lopez Raich’s cited that her cannabis was self grown, where the soil, seeds, nutrients, and lumber used to grow the marijuana were purchased in her home state of California and was grown her personal use only. The same principle can be applied to Monson’s use of medical marijuana.  Why then is the government arguing that the Commerce Clause was the reason why this was illegal?
   The Commerce Clause is one of the enumerated powers given by the Constitution pursuant to Article I, Section VIII. The Commerce Clause allows Congress to regulate commerce “among the several States, with foreign countries, and with the Indian tribes.” Raich argued that like Lopez, her cannabis use did not in any way affect that of interstate commerce or “commerce among several states,” and that her possession and use of the marijuana was not commerce, especially because Monson and Raich did not pay for the cannabis. The dissenting opinion is that this was “a purely local activity that it was beyond the reach of federal power.” Justice Scalia in his dissenting concurrence stated that, “It is misleading because, unlike the channels, instrumentalities, and agents of interstate commerce, activities that substantially affect interstate commerce are not themselves part of interstate commerce, and thus the power to regulate them cannot come from the Commerce Clause alone.” It is because of these facts and reasoning that the ruling of the Supreme Court is incorrect.
   One of the requirements of the Compassionate Use Act was that the medical marijuana needed to be prescribed by a physician. During arguments at both the Ninth Circuit Raich’s physician, Frank H. Lucidd M.D., testified under oath that “it could be fatal for Angel to forego cannabis treatments because of a law that may purport to prohibit the medical use of cannabis.”  Raich suffers from numerous different medical disorders, and she stated that she planned to continue smoking cannabis despite the ruling of the Supreme Court. In the case of Monson, she suffered from chronic pain due to a car accident in 1995. Monson stated that she uses cannabis to relieve pain and spasms in her back and spine. 
   It is obvious to me that the rationale used by the Government here is not very fitting in this case. To argue the Commerce Clause and calling Raich and Monson’s possession and consumption for their own purposes and health interstate commerce is preposterous. The facts of this case are simple, the Congress and the DEA are not within their constitutional limits to seize the cannabis from the petitioners because of the fact that the cannabis’ procurement and growth was all prescribed, grown, and used within the state of California. It is because of these reasons, and the other reasons mentioned in my opinion, that the ruling of the Supreme Court is wrong, and the injunction issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was indeed the correct one.

[Gabu]

What class is this for?  It's usually considered bad style in a formal essay to use the first person (I, me, etc.).

[MAS117]

What class is this for?  It's usually considered bad style in a formal essay to use the first person (I, me, etc.).

Yeah, I know.  It was due like 2 weeks ago, but its for AP Government & Politics. I forgot about the first person crap (only got a few points off). Besides that what do u think?

[Gabu]

What class is this for?  It's usually considered bad style in a formal essay to use the first person (I, me, etc.).

Yeah, I know.  It was due like 2 weeks ago, but its for AP Government & Politics. I forgot about the first person crap (only got a few points off). Besides that what do u think?

Oh, I didn't realize that this had already been turned in.  I thought you were asking for feedback to help you make it better.

I'm not a legal expert, but the argument against the decision in Raich v. Gonzales definitely seems pretty good.

[Peter]

The majority decision was delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens and joined by Justices Kennedy, Souter, Breyer, and Ginsberg. The dissenting opinion was delivered by Justice O’ Connor, and joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, and partially by Justice Thomas. Thomas also wrote a separate concurrence dissent, as did Justice Scalia.

I am not sure that this is an accurate reflection of the opinions issued. I also have never encountered a "concurrence dissent" in my time of reading Supreme Court opinions.

You've got the majority and O'Connor's dissent down well, however Thomas' opinion was also another dissent (there was nothing concurring about it). Justice Scalia's opinion was a concurrence in the judgement , that is, he agreed with the final decision of the Court, but not with the reasoning used to get there.

As a result of your misconstruction of Justice Scalia's opinion, you rely on several of his remarks in support of your attack on Raich, when in fact you take his remarks totally out of context:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What Justice Scalia went on to say was the following:

Rather, as this Court has acknowledged since at least United States v. Coombs, Congress’s regulatory authority over intrastate activities that are not themselves part of interstate commerce (including activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce) derives from the Necessary and Proper Clause. (citations omitted)

He derived Congresses power here not solely from the Commerce Clause (as the majority had done), but also rests on the Necessary and Proper clause.

[The Duke]

You don't seriously address any objections to your case.  At all.  Its as if you haven't even considered that someone might not agree with you.

[MAS117]

You don't seriously address any objections to your case.  At all.  Its as if you haven't even considered that someone might not agree with you.

Well the essay is why I feel its wrong, not everyone else.

[J. J.]

The majority decision was delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens and joined by Justices Kennedy, Souter, Breyer, and Ginsberg. The dissenting opinion was delivered by Justice O’ Connor, and joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, and partially by Justice Thomas. Thomas also wrote a separate concurrence dissent, as did Justice Scalia.

I am not sure that this is an accurate reflection of the opinions issued. I also have never encountered a "concurrence dissent" in my time of reading Supreme Court opinions.

You've got the majority and O'Connor's dissent down well, however Thomas' opinion was also another dissent (there was nothing concurring about it). Justice Scalia's opinion was a concurrence in the judgement , that is, he agreed with the final decision of the Court, but not with the reasoning used to get there.

As a result of your misconstruction of Justice Scalia's opinion, you rely on several of his remarks in support of your attack on Raich, when in fact you take his remarks totally out of context:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What Justice Scalia went on to say was the following:

Rather, as this Court has acknowledged since at least United States v. Coombs, Congress’s regulatory authority over intrastate activities that are not themselves part of interstate commerce (including activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce) derives from the Necessary and Proper Clause. (citations omitted)

He derived Congresses power here not solely from the Commerce Clause (as the majority had done), but also rests on the Necessary and Proper clause.

I'm glad Peter Bell posted; it saved me searching through the Constitution.  I would tend to agree with Scalia on this point.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Let me suggest some structure for your essay.

First, a Statement of Facts (history of the case).

Second, clearly delineate the Issue(s) involved in the case.

Third, identify the Rule(s) involved.

Fourth, a clearly labeled Analysis of the decision.

Fifth, your Conclusion.

As I noted in a seperate thread on this matter, Justice Thomas once again got it correct and the majority was once again wrong.

You might want to expand your essay by noting that this case once again establishes that there are three blocs on the Supreme Court.  One in favor of the Constitution as a blank check, one which believes the Constitution means what it says, and a third which waffles between the two.

P.S. Good luck on your essay.

[MAS117]

I got an 85% if anyone wanted to know, lol.