Rip That is what happened to me

@Undead Mockingbird The point of the ruling was simply this: the federal government doesn't give a shit how badly you mutilate someone's pussy or dick, they threw their hands up and are now saying "Not our problem. You states gotta regulate it yourselves. PEACE OUT, WE'RE GOING TO SPACE-VEGAS AND GETTIN' US SOME HOOKERS!"

What was their exact reasoning?

Why the feds can't do it

No, the ruling is that the Constitution, the highest law of a land of laws, FORBIDS the federal government from making that law

Their reason is "Tenth Ammendment says so, lol."

What? That is ridiculous

Even the judge stated in his ruling an encouragement to states to do their fucking job for once.

Guess the federal agents can't arrest people for pot anymore. Since controlled substances are not in there either

Ah, yes.

What about pot lawS?

Unless you count that one amendment that was overturned

Yeah, apparently this ruling could spread.
It could easily use this ruling to say murder, rape, and any number of other things previously deemed crimes, are now federally legal and groups like the FBI are not allowed to arrest you for that shit anymore, because only the individual states can go after you.

It's dumb this judge should be disbarred

I think the feds are actually overstepping their powers quite a bit in other areas, if they cannot regulate that.

Yeah

Also, when those things are in the hands of states, usually changes in law can be made more quickly.

Needing a constitutional amendment for every federal law is insanity

Things take forever and are usually prohibitively expensive for individuals when they have to take it all the way to the Supreme Court.

The Controlled Substances Act is founded on interstate commerce clause. I do believe that for drugs produced within a state that the Act is npot legitimate.

Well this ruling officially says that any federal law that isn't in the constitution: Is now worth less than toilet paper, because it has no value anymore. It's either the constitution, or state laws, only.

the Constitution limits Federal authority to only those powers delegated to it
by the Constitution itself, or a "law of nations" (treaty)
absent an explicit power to regulate genital mutilation, or the involvement of interstate commerce, or an enabling treaty
the feds lack the power to pass the law in question

I still think the reasoning for interstate commerce is a bit strange.

Raich is a bit strange

Let's say you have two states side by side and both think it's okay to buy and sell pot. Now, some Joe or Jane brings their pot from one state to the next. Suddenly, the federal laws get involved?

Why is that?

The Constitution provides the Federal Government with ample basis to legislate. Just not on everything.

It's just going from one state to another, both of which decided that the sale of pot is fine.

@Undead Mockingbird , because interstate commerce clause of the constitution

Interstate Commerce Clause @Undead Mockingbird

yes

Yes, but it's still silly.

Right. Murder, Rape, Theft (as long as it's not tax evasion theft), mutilating children, all that stuff, can't be protected by federal law.

It's as if you have a line in the sand. Pot is fine on this side and on that side, but because I have stepped across that line, I am suddenly a criminal?

@JustTom , correct. Unless it can be linked to a treaty or the constitution.

Yep. Oregon could pass a law legalizing murder, and the federal government would be powerless.

correct @JustTom - those are the province of the states
unless there is some vector by which the feds find jurisdiction

Legalizing murder?

I am not sure about htat.

Sure. What federal power grants jurisdiction?

Too late @Undead Mockingbird It's already federally legal!