Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 44 AMP
Pardon me for being stupid, but isn't that like saying everyone who doesn't have feet should be under Federal jurisdiction because they don't buy shoes??
Or perhaps we should all be under Federal jurisdiction because every woman we didn't get pregnant affects the population numbers??
Of course, every woman we did, affects those numbers too, so isn't this actually legal mumbo jumbo saying "damned if you do, and damned if you don't!" ??
|
That's not far from the logic of some commerce clause cases. When challenges to the ACA were coming up, we saw the argument that
not buying insurance had an effect on the medical services market, which is an interstate market. The diabetic without feet in CA has an effect on how many shoelace repair shops operate in NJ.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JohnKsa
You didn't consider what I kindly asked you to consider or you would realize that it's impossible to use marijuana without changing the supply of marijuana. That's somewhat different from using a firearm.
|
That is incorrect. I considered you point and concluded that this shows that you still don't believe the Wickard Court's explanation of its own decision.
The federal action in Raich was not for use. I'm not hiding the ball; I just noted a few posts up,
Quote:
|
Nevertheless, her possession fell within federal authority under the Controlled Substances Act.
|
Possession of a controlled substance or a firearm has the same influence on supply unless either is resold. The respondents in Raich were not sellers of controlled substances.
You will also observe that a firearm can be consumed by use. There are surely fewer 18th century firearms in circulation now than 200 years ago.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JohnKsa
Quote:
|
Since the fact pattern of Wickard involves federal regulation of activity that would not be permitted under the exercise of federal power involved, your scenario isn’t based on the circumstances of Wickard.
|
The reason that there was a Wickard case in the first place was a difference of opinion of whether the activity could be regulated or not. Pointing that out does not invalidate the scenario I provided, it is merely a creative restatement of the reason for the exercise.
|
No, John, my observation is not that the parties need to disagree for a case to exist.
The explanation is that there must be an assertion of federal power to be analogous to Wickard. In your scenario, the contradictory elements of which you continue to present, there is no federal claim of regulation per the terms of the scenario.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JohnKsa at 59
Ok, let's try this from a different angle.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JohnKsa at 61
Ok, let's try it again,...
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JohnKsa
Let's try again. I'll further reword the problem to make the similarity to Wickard explicit, but still without making any changes at all to the relevant points. Not that I actually believe that you, an attorney, really couldn't understand how it was relevant as stated initially.
|
Rather than have you "try again" with the same formula, it might be more productive for you to read this page and digest the comments about the dissimilarities of Wickard, Raich and your scenario.
If you are having a problem with what an attorney tells you about the law, you might consider that he isn't the problem.