Gonzales v. Raich

The question presented to the Supreme Court in Raich v. Gonzales is whether or not the Commerce Clause affords Congress the power to ban the growth, use, and sale of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act and whether it can enforce that act against ill people whose doctors prescribed to them medical marijuana as a remedy. Writing for the majority in that case, Justice John Paul Stevens employed Justice Breyer’s strand of pragmatism. The premise of that approach is that the Constitution enshrines values and principles, but it affords judges the flexibility to apply those principles to changing circumstances. Hence, one key aspect of pragmatic judging is its embrace of constitutional evolution, which we will see on display in Raich. Further, Breyer’s brand of pragmatism places great emphasis on using the Courts to facilitate, not impede, the work of other branches of government while protecting Constitutional values. While the definition I have provided of pragmatism to this point is vague, future…

Supreme Court Decision: Gonzales v. Raich The case of Gonzales v. Raich begins with the passing of the Compassionate Use Act, a California law that allows marijuana to be used medically. Angel Raich’s doctor recommended the use of medical marijuana for medicinal purposes; however, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents found the growing of Raich’s six marijuana plants to be a violation of of the federal law under the Controlled Substances Act. Passed using the interstate commerce clause,…

set throughout the history of the Supreme Court, such as “Wickard V. Filburn (1942),” “Gonzalez V. Raich (2005),” “Gibbons V. Ogden (1824),” among others is a great way to gain a…

activities and cases involving state and their citizens, especially cases that have controversy surrounding it regarding the balance of power between the federal government and the states and sometimes underlying moral issues and also sometimes to stop discrimination and segregation but it all have revolved around commerce activities. In Heart of Atlanta Motel v. the United States, the Supreme Court declared that the power of Congress to promote interstate commerce also includes the power to…

could have a substantial effect on interstate commerce;” (Miller and Jentz 35). This resulted in the local production falling subject to the commerce clause and Congress’ right to regulate it because it, although far stretched, was thought to, in aggregate, substantially change demand and thus change the outcome interstate commerce. Wickard v. Filburn (1942) was another case in which Congress yielded more powers over commerce, the states, and the American citizens. Obviously, Congress was…

National Association of Bros v. United States (2015) In The PLAY Act of 2015, Congress made it a federal offense “for individuals aged 18 through 35 to play video games for more than 8 hours per week” citing their Commerce Clause and taxing those who choose to play over the allotted 8 hours per week through their Taxing and Spending Clause. Although, Congress has passed many laws in the name of both the Commerce Clause and the Taxing and Spending Clause, we the court must define which activities…

One court case utilizing the Necessary and Proper Clause is Gonzales v. Raich. In this case, Angel Raich fought for the legalization of medical marijuana. Raich suffered from various chronic illnesses. Her doctors tried numerous treatments in hopes that Raich would go into remission; however, their attempts were to no avail. The only hope that remained was for her to bring her concerns to the court so that she could possibly tolerate her illnesses with the help of an illegal drug used for…

For example, even more so than Congress’s commerce power, there is a broad interpretation of the federal legislature’s taxing power. This fact was exploited by SCOTUS in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. ___ (2012). This particular case had to do with the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s Individual Mandate. In the opinion of the court, Justice Roberts wrote that “the commerce power… does not authorize the mandate”. However, the…

Usery would be overturned in 1985 by Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, where it established that the federal government did in fact have this authority under the Commerce Clause. Rehnquist maintained his previous position in his dissent where in emphatically rejected the notion of granting federal authority in such an important matter, “The true "essence" of federalism is that the States as States have legitimate interests which the National Government is bound to respect…

Take the case of Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), where Ogden received an exclusive license to operate steamboat ferries between New Jersey and New York City on the Hudson River from the state of New York. Gibbons, a competitor, wished to conduct his own ferry business on the same route. Ogden sought an injunction against Gibbons since he had the exclusive rights to operate the route. Since the route crossed state lines, Gibbons claimed he had the right to operate on the route pursuant to a 1793 act…