The Constitution

If you have an elevated view of the wisdom of the Supreme Court, you may want to reconsider. In his majority opinion ruling – a ruling that comes about because of the “smaller government” Bush administration’s appeal of a lower court ruling -- against the states’ rights to regulate marijuana, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote:

"Our cases have taught us that there are some unscrupulous physicians who overprescribe when it is sufficiently profitable to do so.”

There must be an updated Constitution he is using, as the old one does not refer to his concerns being an issue that can be used to override states’ rights. That means Oxycontin and about a hundred other pain killers will be pull off the market by Justice Stevens soon, as well as Viagra? Or, is this a supreme ruling of pontificating Clear Politics?

Should marijuana drugs be legal? Only if you believe in freedom. Do the state’s have rights? Only if they agree with the obese federal government’s, it appears – no matter which party is in charge.

posted at 14:28:16 on 06/06/05 by clearpolitics - Category: Freedom - [Permalink]

Previous | Next


Rights Smoked wrote:

Justice Clarence Thomas has it right in the dissent. I have not been a big fan of his, but he understands the rights of the states.
06/07/05 10:36:20

Marijuana for the Masses wrote:

This has to change. This war against a plant must end. Whether you partake or don't is not the issue.

Marijuana for the Masses.
06/09/05 09:09:49

Add Comments

This item is closed, it's not possible to add new comments to it or to vote on it