Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not legal where I am at all and I get hotboxed on my morning drive to work every day...
The fact that so many people think it's fine to get high and drive is baffling to me.
[flagged]
US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional
141–150 of 369 posts
Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional
#142Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
[deleted]
Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
I personally would be okay with having it legal if smoking could still be banned in multifamily complexes. I don't care if my neighbors are using edibles, but since I know that legalized weed means more smoke coming from my neighbors' balconies, I will always vote "No" when marijuana legalization is on the ballot in my location.
[flagged]
I don't think it's unreasonable to desire to be free from the noxious odors of others.
> The right to waft my smells in any direction ends where your nose begins.
- Abraham Lincoln or Ben Franklin or Mark Twain or someone
Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional
#145Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional
#146Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional
#147Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It's legal in many states here. In SF it's absolutely everywhere and disgusting. Austin smells like tobacco and it's much better to my nose.
[flagged]
Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
And before people say you are being hyperbolic, the government still regulates sex positions. Sodomy is illegal in 12 US states.
Not the federal government, however. There are specific prohibitions on certain categories of state laws, like granting titles of nobility, creating non-gold/silver currencies, etc. The federal government cannot constitutionally regulate sex positions, because anything not explicitly covered in the Constitution is reserved to the states, or the people. In that broad grant, however, the states individually can make or…
>The federal government cannot constitutionally regulate sex positions, because anything not explicitly covered in the Constitution is reserved to the states, or the people.
That being said, there's probably not a constitutional way to enforce laws regulating sex positions. Even if you don't agree that such laws are clearly discriminatory in intent (let alone impact), the privacy violations necessary to prove guilt "Beyond a reasonable doubt" almost certainly violate the Fourth Amendment, and any theory of harm would implicitly (if not explicitly) rest on religion.
This is all assuming you don't accept Griswold as a reasonable constitutional argument that pretty obviously would extend to the kinds of sex people have.
Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have identified a root perversion. Roscoe Filburn’s wheat did not leave Ohio or even his farm. He didn’t offer it for sale; the wheat was for his own use. It was deemed to “affect interstate commerce” and thus within the scope of the interstate commerce clause. With that, a provision intended to remove power of states to tax each other’s goods and services and promote a free trade zone instead became a mechanism…
I don't see SCOTUS ever overturning Wickard , sadly. Too many federal programs and regulations would lose their legal basis if that happened.
You’re almost certainly correct. Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson would argue this consequentualist line. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch could be persuaded by textualist or originalist arguments and are the most likely overturn votes. Kavanaugh was a key man on standing up and defending the so-called PATRIOT Act during the George W. Bush administration, so no way he knocks out this pillar.
ACB talked a strong originalist game during her confirmation but since shown it’s not her core philosophy. Although Roberts appears inclined to rein in the administrative state, he’s aligned chaotic neutral and thinks himself too clever.
Already down 4-3 and having to persuade both Barrett and Roberts to join a ruling overturning parts of Wickard, another Dobbs seems wildly unlikely even though both precedents were poorly reasoned. At best, they agree to some marginal or technical reduction in scope. It seems equally likely that she sides with the four, in which case, what does Roberts do? He may need to make it 6-3 to control who writes the opinion. Such strong numbers would be unfavorable enough on the surface that he might persuade her back to an even more tepid limitation. The concurring opinions that it would induce from Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch would be entertaining reading, at least.