View Single Post
Old 07-21-2009, 10:31 AM
command_liner command_liner is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Heart of the Valley, Oregon
Posts: 904
iTrader: 0 / 0%

For a while I have been pointing this out, in writing, but few seem
to understand. Perhaps I am waaaay off base, but perhaps not.

Just as Heller was largely about Roe v. Wade (a valid constitutional
republic cannot invent rights not in the constitution, then ignore
rights in that same constitution), the Nordyke or MacDonald cases
is really about the 1971 Duke Power decision, and thus the CRA 1965.
Read what Scalia wrote in Heller, then what he wrote in Ricci. We
cannot have both the 14th and the Duke Power decision.

Interesting stuff. The way I see it, the plan is to re-establish the 14th,
but rely on Commerce Clause to hold up all the existing regulatory
structure. Why else rule on intra-state marijuana sales?

We live in interesting times.
Reply With Quote