Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

nypost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 369 posts

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#61

Post by realo »

dmitrygr wrote: post #46
tdb7893 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think much more likely is that it will just be made legal federally sometime in the next decade. Marijuana legalization has majorities across ideologies ( https://news.gallup.com/poll/514007/grassroots-support-legal... ) and even though the inability to create federal law on something so popular seems like a good case study on how the US system doesn't always do a good job representing it's actual people, it seems…

You’re probably right, though I dread the possibility. I cannot stand the smell, and one of the best things about moving from California to Texas was avoiding that pervasive smell being everywhere. Negative externalities of personal behavior really need to be handled better in our society. If you want pot to be legal, fine, but only inside your own personal enclosed house.

THC is perfectly legal here (Quebec, Canada) and believe me, there is no smell on the streets!

What is actually disgusting and happens often in the streets is the smell of ordinary cigarette smoke.

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#62

Post by Windchaser »

mothballed wrote: post #38
tt24 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The interstate commerce clause is just craziness. It touches everything and gives justification to regulate nearly anything.

You could just as easily stuff most of those things under the "general welfare" clause if you do the same rigamarole of years and years of precedent hand-waving. We live in a post constitutional state. The constitution is just something worked to backwards so the guys who function as our priests/gods point to the document because that's the only way to feign some sort of legitimacy to our government. Ultimately none…

General Welfare Clause only applies to taxing and spending, though, not just general regulation (e.g., making drugs illegal or banning segregation).

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#63

Post by 999900000999 »

bsimpson wrote: post #13

Do this one next: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich The Supreme Court somehow held that the feds can regulate what you do in your own home (in this case, growing marijuana for personal use) because it could have a butterfly effect on the interstate price. (Constitutionally, the feds can only regulate _interstate_ commerce.)

The problem is if you say the government can’t regulate MJ, then all drug regulations fall apart.

On one hand you should have a right to buy whatever you want at 21( which should be the minimum enlistment age), but I’d be concerned about Billy selling homemade GPLs or whatever.

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#64

Post by amanaplanacanal »

Joker_vD wrote: post #31
semiquaver wrote: post #11

> [Judge Edith Jones] also said that under the government’s logic, Congress could criminalize virtually any in-home activity Well, yeah. This is essentially the holding in Wickard v. Filburn, which seems to be in tension with this decision (overturning that would be great but it’s not the role of the circuit courts of appeal to do preemptively)

Also, this line is quite funny on its own because while understand what she actually meant, it can be very easily reinterpreted as "only actions committed out-of-home should be crimes; murdered someone in your home? welp, our hands are tied, have a nice day".

I think the point is that murder is handled by the states, not Congress. This is about what the federal government can do, not all government.

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#65

Post by drak0n1c »

mothballed wrote: post #21
swiftcoder wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd imagine one wants to litigate Wickard v. Filburn in its entirety, rather than just the downstream Gonzales v. Raich

That would also invalidate the civil rights act, as the (similar) 19th century CRA was already struck down because the 14th amendment binds against discrimination by public not private actors. The reason why the modern CRAs weren't also struck is because they rested on the laurels of Wickard v Filburn declaring the CRA (this time) is about regulating "interstate" commerce.

That would be an improvement in the same spirit, as the modern CRAs are also unconstitutionally limiting over what one chooses to do with their own property. The scope should be limited to government-involved services and facilities, as those must serve all possible taxpayers. We live in a more connected, option-saturated information age where even bigots more often than not understand the utility of at least doing business politely and making nuanced exceptions. Egregious offenses are corrected by social pressure and business competition. The current regime of ambulance-chasing liabilities inserted into every organizational, contracting, and hiring process harms far more people of every race and sex than it helps.

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#66

Post by dylan604 »

999900000999 wrote: post #63
bsimpson wrote: post #13

Do this one next: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich The Supreme Court somehow held that the feds can regulate what you do in your own home (in this case, growing marijuana for personal use) because it could have a butterfly effect on the interstate price. (Constitutionally, the feds can only regulate _interstate_ commerce.)

The problem is if you say the government can’t regulate MJ, then all drug regulations fall apart. On one hand you should have a right to buy whatever you want at 21( which should be the minimum enlistment age), but I’d be concerned about Billy selling homemade GPLs or whatever.

> The problem is if you say the government can’t regulate MJ, then all drug regulations fall apart.

No, that's not what's being said. If you grow your own plant for personal use, there's no need for the federal government to be involved. If you grow that plant and then try to sell it, then there's some commerce which does fall under some regulation (we'll leave the interstate nuances aside). Having the fed being allowed to say you cannot grow in your house is one step away from saying you are only allowed to perform missionary position (no other positions are allowed) between the hours of 7-8pm, but not at all on Sunday.

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#67

Post by davidw »

999900000999 wrote: post #63
bsimpson wrote: post #13

Do this one next: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich The Supreme Court somehow held that the feds can regulate what you do in your own home (in this case, growing marijuana for personal use) because it could have a butterfly effect on the interstate price. (Constitutionally, the feds can only regulate _interstate_ commerce.)

The problem is if you say the government can’t regulate MJ, then all drug regulations fall apart. On one hand you should have a right to buy whatever you want at 21( which should be the minimum enlistment age), but I’d be concerned about Billy selling homemade GPLs or whatever.

> I’d be concerned about Billy selling homemade GPLs or whatever.

Would it be better with a BSD license?

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#68

Post by MichaelDickens »

999900000999 wrote: post #63
bsimpson wrote: post #13

Do this one next: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich The Supreme Court somehow held that the feds can regulate what you do in your own home (in this case, growing marijuana for personal use) because it could have a butterfly effect on the interstate price. (Constitutionally, the feds can only regulate _interstate_ commerce.)

The problem is if you say the government can’t regulate MJ, then all drug regulations fall apart. On one hand you should have a right to buy whatever you want at 21( which should be the minimum enlistment age), but I’d be concerned about Billy selling homemade GPLs or whatever.

I believe the original idea of the Constitution was that most things would be regulated at the state level.

This is pretty much already the case with marijuana, where it's illegal at the federal level, but in practice if it's legal in your state then it's legal.

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#69

Post by bluGill »

GenerWork wrote: post #14

It's been way too long since I've taken a political science course, but does this mean that the ban is struck down for the entire country, or just the area that the 5th Court of Appeals covers?

Only the 5th court of appeals. However if you get caught elsewhere your lawyer will have a good appeal grounds just because your area will need to decide if they agree. If all areas eventually agree it probably never will get to the supreme court. Once several different courts hear this and make a decision if they disagree the supreme court jumps in reading all the logic of everyone below them to try to find a real answer. (It doesn't always work this way, that is the textbook ideal way, but the real world is often different).

Note that unless you think nothing of spending 20 million dollars on lawyers this is probably not something that you want to fight.

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#70

Post by rtkwe »

dcrazy wrote: post #22
malfist wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prior to this year, the entire country. Today, thanks to SCOTUS shenanigans, it likely only applies to the states involved in the lawsuit, LA. But who knows, hard to keep up with the game of calvinball the SCOTUS is playing.

You seem to be confusing precedent-setting decisions with nationwide injunctions.

Probably though the old pattern was that the plaintiffs would request and the Circuit would issue a nationwide injunction with the ruling when finding that a law in full unconstitutional.

Now we have the weird situation where the constitution is more patchwork because you have to get rulings in all the Circuits or wait for one case to make it all the way to the Supreme Court.

Post reply on HN