| awthrawthr@yahoo.com 2006-08-01, 9:26 pm |
|
Mark Probert wrote:
> awthrawthr@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> With numerous exceptions where the health and life of a child is in issue.
>
>
> I recognize that the courts have limited the police power in several
> ways. The question is whether they have limited the police power in this
> situation so that the court overstepped.
The Federal Appelate Court that covers NY in the case Schneider v.
Revici ruled that patients have every right, under assumption of risk,
to choose they type of treatment they want.
>
>
> I did not read or follow that case closely. However, I believe that they
> used the CC to hold that Federal law is controlling, since these
> substances affect interstate commerce.
>
> BTW, I disagreed with the decision and support the use of medical
> marijuana. I have an old friend with serious Crohn's disease who only
> gets relief from smoking.
We probably agree on this as to the overreaching use of the Commerce
Clause. I only vaguely recall the precedent set prior to the 'medical
pot' case. Something about a farmer or something. What I do recall is
that the court far exceeded its bounds in that case, only to leap
headlong further into judicial tyranny with its 'medical pot' decision.
By that decision ANYTHING and EVERYTHING affects interstate commerce,
even pot that isn't being sold or bought...that was privately grown for
private use. If one flushes their toilet after going to the bathroom,
the commerce clause might be used since the water might go into a river
and lap up on the shores of a neighboring state thereby affecting that
state's sewage costs.
[vbcol=seagreen]
|