Rodolfo Gonzales

Can you briefly explain what the dormant commerce clause is? The negative commerce clause, also known as the dormant commerce clause is a doctrine established by the U.S. Supreme Court, limiting individual states of the United States from passing legislation that inappropriately discriminates against interstate commerce. The dormant commerce clause limits the power of individual states to legislate on such matters and is not an express clause in the U.S. Constitution (AMAR, K. 2007). Why would dormant

Introduction: Drug abuse has always been a very delicate question as it always it deals with the health, well-being and even lives of human beings belonging to any country. The position of the United States of America towards drugs has always been very clear and distinctively negative. Throughout the history of the country there were numerous cases against drug dealers, buyers and many more. These cases did always catch the attention of civil people who by showing interest in such cases revealed

The Commerce Clause grants Congress the power “[t]o regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” Despite its silence as to the effect of that affirmative power, federal courts have recognized the Framers’ wish to create a unified national market and have found a dormant congressional authority in it. Since the landmark case of Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), that dormant authority has limited state regulations that burden interstate commerce, even in

Department of Justice wrote a guidance memo to prosecutors, which states that prosecuting state medical marijuana cases is not a federal priority. Most medical cannabis follow a set of eight guidelines as stated in the article. In the landmark case of Gonzales v. Raich (2005), the Supreme Court established the constitutional right for the federal government to prohibit marijuana in any case. The Commerce-Justice-Science bill was a bill created to prohibit the Justice Department to use funds that prevent

Drug abuse has always been a very delicate question as it always it deals with the health, well-being and even lives of human beings belonging to any country. The position of the United States of America towards drugs has always been very clear and distinctively negative. Throughout the history of the country there were numerous cases against drug dealers, buyers and many more. These cases did always catch the attention of civil people who by showing interest in such cases revealed their worries

Many scientists, doctors, and patients recognize the medicinal utility of marijuana. However, the federal government opposes passing legislation that would legalize medical marijuana because of its potential to be abused or unregulated. The states are continuously challenging the federal government causing complications in legislation in regards to medical marijuana. Because of its history of medicinal properties and accumulating amounts of state and local legislation, the federal government should

The Commerce Clause in Article 1, Section 8 states that Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce itself as well as the power to regulate local commerce if that local commerce has a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce. When Congress regulates an intrastate activity, there is a test that is used by the Supreme Court that determines whether Congress actually has the right to regulate this intrastate activity with some sort of economic effect. The Commerce Clause test

I — The Pragmatic Majority The questions presented to the Supreme Court in Raich v. Gonzales (2005) are whether the Commerce Clause affords Congress the power to ban the growth, use, and sale of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act and whether it can enforce that act against ill people whose doctors have prescribed medical marijuana as a remedy. Writing for the majority in that case, Justice John Paul Stevens employed Justice Stephen Breyer’s strand of pragmatism to answer those questions

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989) sent shock waves through the United States as it slowly peeled back the layers of Roe. To recap, Webster deemed it was constitutional for the Missouri legislative chamber to include in a bill that the “life of each human being begins at conception” despite this being a debated fact among the pro-life and pro-choice crowds. Another interesting distinction that was upheld, and helped to light the fire for other states to enact this, was that abortions

The United States has a federal system of government where the states and national government exercise separate powers within their own spheres of authority. Federalism is a system of government where power is controlled by two levels of government, generally national and state. National government mainly deal with issues that affect the entire country, while state deal with smaller issues on a local level. James Madison says that the states and national government "are in fact but different agents