Colorado court: Workers can be fired for using marijuana off-duty

[Luis Gonzalez]

I like the substance of your posts, but your tendency to insult other posters and assume their motives gets a bit old. 

You didn't know my thoughts on the modern application of the Commerce Clause, and it's a bit offensive that you constructed that strawman and then proceeded with a lengthy post that had nothing to do with how I based my opinion.  I subsequently offered my personal take on the modern application of the Commerce Clause, and you've yet to reply with so much as a simple apology for misrepresenting my opinion on the Commerce Clause.

Misrepresenting, misunderstanding, or not understanding are completely different concepts.

I did not misrepresent what you said.

[Free Vulcan]

I get that, but the Federal laws superseding the State laws in this case are not Constitutionally sound. They are all based on the Commerce Clause, and the commerce Clause does not apply in cases where you grow some weed in your State to be sold and/or distributed in your State.

This all goes back to Robert F. Kennedy's assault on property rights with the Heart of Atlanta and Ollie's Barbecue cases.

Unfortunately the Supreme Court overrules you and has done so since the FDR days. This is the world we live in.

[Carling]

Misrepresenting, misunderstanding, or not understanding are completely different concepts.

I did not misrepresent what you said.

You assigned a motive to me.   You may not think you misrepresented what I said, but you did it, not me.

[Carling]

Unfortunately the Supreme Court overrules you and has done so since the FDR days. This is the world we live in.

Exactly.  Thinking the decision is valid under the current use of the Commerce Clause doesn't mean I agree with it.

But, it is what it is, and it's really not a surprise decision at all.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Unfortunately the Supreme Court overrules you and has done so since the FDR days. This is the world we live in.

Lochner v. New York was overturned.

Chisholm v. Georgia was overturned.

Adler v. Board of Education was overturned.

Pace v. Alabama was overturned.

Wolf v. Colorado was overturned.

Dredd Scott v. Sandford was overturned.

Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned.

Every case that used everyone of those cases (and others) as precedent, were in fact incorrect decisions based on unsound precedent.

The expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause and all the case law built around it may remain in place forever and used as precedent in other cases, but that doesn't make it right.

If Ollie's Barbecue is ever overturned, every decision that used it as precedent will also be overturned.

This Colorado case included.

[Free Vulcan]

That's all well an good, but as you yourself have argued on other threads, the ruling of SCOTUS is the final word. All else is academic whether any of us agree or not.

[Luis Gonzalez]

That's all well an good, but as you yourself have argued on other threads, the ruling of SCOTUS is the final word. All else is academic whether any of us agree or not.

It's a subtle distinction, but I never said that the ruling of SCOTUS was the final world. Hard to make that argument when SCOTUS can overturn their own decisions.

The argument that I did make was that neither Congress, nor the President could overrule the SCOTUS to the degree that both Obama and Rick Santorum have suggested.

[Luis Gonzalez]

It's a subtle distinction, but I never said that the ruling of SCOTUS was the final world. Hard to make that argument when SCOTUS can overturn their own decisions.

The argument that I did make was that neither Congress, nor the President could overrule the SCOTUS to the degree that both Obama and Rick Santorum have suggested.

And even when they do overturn their own decisions, it's still the SCOTUS having the final world. What's not going to happen is the SCOTUS overturning a law because they find it unconstitutional, then the POTUS or Congress overturning the SCOTUS and reinstating the law.

They may draft a new law that eliminates or modifies that portion previously found to be unconstitutional, but the original law will not be re-enacted.