The End of the War on Drugs, or the End of Federalism?
On Monday, the case Ashcroft v. Raich will be heard by the Supreme Court. Nominally, the case involves the usage of medical marijuana, but it is a bit more complicated than that. You see, California passed an intiative a while back called Prop 215, legalizing the use of medical marijuana. The Clinton administration did not like that, so it began harassing doctors who prescribed it (threatening them with loss of their license) and bringing criminal suit against the cooperatives that sold it as a violation of Federal Law. As you might expect, a law passed within an enumerated power (or two/three) of congress trumps the law of the state. Case closed.

Or is the case closed? You see, the defendants didn't buy their pot. It was given to them or self-grown. And it was grow from seeds that came from California. Why is this important? Well, the enumerated power that Congress used to pass the Controlled Substance Act of 1970 (which is the statutory basis for the war on drugs) was that drugs affected interstate commerce. Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution the United States Congress has the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". Suddenly it begins to get a bit fuzzy seeing how these seeds have anything to do with interstate congress (one of the government's arguments that might have trouble passing the laugh test is that by using self grown marijuana, ms. raich and ms. monson do not use prescription drugs which infintesamally affects the price of a drug making it part of interstate commerce under the old case of Wickard v. Filborne).

Now anything "affects" interstate commerce, but under the "federalism revolution" that is not supposed to be good enough. To be a valid exercise of this power, congress can only pass a law regulating:

(1) the channels of commerce,
(2) the instrumentalities of commerce, and
(3) action that substantially affects interstate commerce

So what is this federalism revolution? If you click on the link above, you'll get the details. Alternatively, leftist ACSBlog (let's just say that organizationally, or at least at Stanford, they are not the biggest fans of it) summary of it has been included below.

Almost a decade ago, a conservative 5-4 majority in U.S. v. Lopez sparked a revolution in federalism jurisprudence by overturning the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990. Speaking for the Court, Chief Justice Rehnquist held that guns in schools do not have a substantial enough impact on interstate commerce to fall within the Congress’ Commerce Power. Five years later, a similar reasoning was applied to invalidate the Violence Against Women Act in U.S. v. Morison. Both decisions were hailed by conservative groups, with some even arguing they did not go far enough. According to University of Tennessee law professor Glenn Reynolds (AKA Instapundit):

The Supreme Court can go further. It can and should underscore that the "affecting commerce" test was not intended to allow Congress to find some incidental contact with interstate commerce (for example, that a gun or automobile was manufactured out of state), claim authority, and then extend federal power to everything in sight. When Congress outlaws possession of guns that have at some time been in interstate commerce, as in Scarborough, everyone knows that Congress is not trying to regulate commerce--it is trying to regulate the possession and use of guns.

Here Congress wasn't trying to regulate commerce - it was trying to regulate pot. And everybody knows it. So will the Court follow its federalism precedent now that it would help a cause that liberals as opposed to conservatives care about? Let's just say that if they are hypocritical and do not, the left is ready to pounce.

One can agree or disagree with Reynolds’ pre-New Deal understanding of the Commerce Clause, and the wisdom, or lack thereof, of the New Federalism is a topic for a different article, but the legal similarities among Lopez, Morrison and Raich are unavoidable. According to Randy Barnett, the Boston University law professor and senior fellow at the Cato Institute who litigated Raich, "it is supremely ironic, therefore, that the San Francisco-based Ninth Circuit, much maligned by conservatives, is the court of appeals that is taking the Supreme Court's new Commerce Clause jurisprudence the most seriously." As Barnett acknowledges, however, Raich is distinguishable from Lopez and Morrison in that an issue liberals tend to care about, medical marijuana usage, is now at stake.

If Raich loses, federalism is for all intensive purposes dead for the present, because it will be shown to be a doctrine that only will be enacted to save conservative causes. If Raich wins however, it begins to be easy to see a way to end the war on drugs. Make your drugs yourself or buy them from an instate dealer in a state where they will have been decriminalized.

What Was He Thinking?
Saddam that is. This piece explores it. Good read.

I Think I'll Disagree
Amazingly there was no controversey after these remarks (click link and scroll down).
Imam Siraj Wahhaj of Masjid Al-Taqwa mosque in Brooklyn, N.Y., told about 400 students, faculty and staff at the college [Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo] that women should never sacrifice their primary role as caregivers and mothers for a secondary one in a career. He also said women in administrative roles makes sense but "would you want to work with or depend on being saved by a woman firefighter?"

Republican Arrogance
In the Delay Case.

Helter Skelter
Video of the Pistons-Pacers-Fan Brawl is available here.

Marine Shooting
Phil Carter has a piece in Slate on whether it was unlawful.
Professor Volokh has some ruminations on the subject in a series of posts, one of which is here.

Lack of Health Insurance is a Problem?
So says Jesse Taylor at Pandagon in attacking an argument made by my friend Jon Henke.

I'm sorry, but the overexageration of the health insurance problem is really starting to grate on me. Those who want to engage in progressive action on this "pressing social issue" should first read this piece put out by Cato, lest they overestimate the problem and mislead their audience. Here is the key part for those of you too lazy to click on the link that debunks the 45 million uninsured meme put out in elections past:

As far back as the Clinton administration, some critics have tried to create a sense of urgency behind expanding government health programs by citing a government statistic that said something like 40 million Americans lack health insurance.

Originally, "40-something-million-uninsured" meant the persistently uninsured, i.e., those who lacked health insurance for the entire year. The Congressional Budget Office shot holes in that statistic last May when it reported the correct figure is between 21 million and 31 million. Difficult as it may be to believe, an official government statistic was off the mark by maybe 110 percent.

The CBO's figures may still be too high because they count millions of Americans who are Medicaid-eligible, and therefore have coverage whenever they need it. One-third of all "uninsured" children (2.9 million) fall into this category (the CBO gives no estimate for adults). Moreover, the persistently uninsured are mostly young (39 percent are under age 25, and another 22 percent are under age 35) or healthy (86 percent report their health to be "good," "very good," or "excellent").

Rather than admit they have been overstating the number of uninsured by a factor of two and make an embarrassing retraction, which might tend to deflate the campaign, Cover the Uninsured Week continues to claim there are 44 million uninsured. The only possible way to explain this is that they take refuge in the CBO's finding that the original, faulty government statistic does happen to be roughly equivalent to the number of Americans who lack insurance at any specific point in time, rather than for the entire year.

But this broader measure just adds to the count even more not-so-hard cases. In addition to those eligible for Medicaid, for instance, it includes people who lose their health insurance for only a brief period, such as when they graduate from college or change jobs. Over 3 million such people will regain coverage within four months, and another 6 million will regain coverage within 12 months. Various studies suggest that one-fourth (10 million) of this group decline coverage that is offered by their employers, and one-fifth (8 million) live in households making more than $50,000 per year.

Do people lack health insurance? Sure they do. Just not as many as you would think if you only paid attention to the liberal echo chamber cocoon.