United States of America consists of the most diverse and complex societies in the world, with equally extensive legal system. Its legal system is ostensibly different from other countries, for its peculiarity, and in that reason, US legal system is heavily critiqued, commended, and condemned both at home and abroad. Seemingly, the Constrained Court View versus the Dynamic Court view is the most prevalent debate surrounding American judiciary system. This controversy is a deep-rooted argument tracing back to the founding fathers, who discussed whether our chosen forum for orderly dispute resolution is dynamic and flexible or constrained and limited in its ability. Some argue American legal system is undoubtedly dynamic and capable of spurring
…show more content…
Although the Supreme Court ruled that it was unlawful to produce personal stocks of the drug, the enforcement of this ruling is relatively difficult. Not only could Raich and Monson return home after the trial and immediately begin growing marijuana with little risk of being caught, but they could acquire the product through a vast array of illicit channels. Marijuana is an illegal drug and possesses criminal punishment implication, yet it remains one of the most commonly produced crops in America, and amounts to a nearly $100 billion dollar market. The court’s decision ultimately did not, and will not have a significant effect on the personal production of the crop. This constraint resonates with the example of Brown v. Board in which the courts made a decision which society chose to disobey. In order to entirely eradicate this market, and truly enforce the courts decision the punishment would have to be intensified drastically. The prospect of this heightened punishment posses another cultural constraint in the fact that the courts could not logically impose such punishment without public outrage, and ultimately dissention. We can see an almost identical constraint when examining the example of New York subway graffiti issue. These example of cultural constrains further exemplify this case as an example of our legal system’s adherence to the Constrained Court View. …show more content…
In 1976 Robert Randall filed a lawsuit against the United States FDA, DEA, NIDA, Department of Justice, and the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (Randall v. U.S.). Randall filed the lawsuit after being arrested and charged for possession of marijuana. The result of this lawsuit was the mandated creation of the Compassionate Investigational New Drug Study (CID). Randall argued, with success, that the Common Law doctrine of necessity provided him with the right to cultivate marijuana because it was considered a medical necessity (Randall v. U.S.). The court ruled in favor of Randall on November 24, 1976 and judge James Washington stated, “While blindness was shown by competent medical testimony to be the otherwise inevitable result of the defendant's disease, no adverse effects from the smoking of marijuana have been demonstrated. Medical evidence suggests that the medical prohibition is not well-founded.” Randall’s criminal record was expunged and he thereafter filled a petition (which was approved) mandating the government to dispense, with the approval of the FDA, government produced medical marijuana. This case and the courts ruling seem to be a perfect example of the American legal system’s dynamism. They illustrate how the courts are able to change and adapt to specific situation and cases despite preexisting law. Regardless
Although the Supreme Court ruled that it was unlawful to produce personal stocks of the drug, the enforcement of this ruling is relatively difficult. Not only could Raich and Monson return home after the trial and immediately begin growing marijuana with little risk of being caught, but they could acquire the product through a vast array of illicit channels. Marijuana is an illegal drug and possesses criminal punishment implication, yet it remains one of the most commonly produced crops in America, and amounts to a nearly $100 billion dollar market. The court’s decision ultimately did not, and will not have a significant effect on the personal production of the crop. This constraint resonates with the example of Brown v. Board in which the courts made a decision which society chose to disobey. In order to entirely eradicate this market, and truly enforce the courts decision the punishment would have to be intensified drastically. The prospect of this heightened punishment posses another cultural constraint in the fact that the courts could not logically impose such punishment without public outrage, and ultimately dissention. We can see an almost identical constraint when examining the example of New York subway graffiti issue. These example of cultural constrains further exemplify this case as an example of our legal system’s adherence to the Constrained Court View. …show more content…
In 1976 Robert Randall filed a lawsuit against the United States FDA, DEA, NIDA, Department of Justice, and the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (Randall v. U.S.). Randall filed the lawsuit after being arrested and charged for possession of marijuana. The result of this lawsuit was the mandated creation of the Compassionate Investigational New Drug Study (CID). Randall argued, with success, that the Common Law doctrine of necessity provided him with the right to cultivate marijuana because it was considered a medical necessity (Randall v. U.S.). The court ruled in favor of Randall on November 24, 1976 and judge James Washington stated, “While blindness was shown by competent medical testimony to be the otherwise inevitable result of the defendant's disease, no adverse effects from the smoking of marijuana have been demonstrated. Medical evidence suggests that the medical prohibition is not well-founded.” Randall’s criminal record was expunged and he thereafter filled a petition (which was approved) mandating the government to dispense, with the approval of the FDA, government produced medical marijuana. This case and the courts ruling seem to be a perfect example of the American legal system’s dynamism. They illustrate how the courts are able to change and adapt to specific situation and cases despite preexisting law. Regardless