The case entitled ALBERTO R. GONZALES, ATTORNEYT GENERAL, et al. , PETITIONERS v. ANGEL McCLARY RAICH et al had the case no 03 – 1454. This was a case filed in the United States of America Supreme Court. The case was formerly known as the Ashcroft v. Raich. Substantive Facts The respondents, before the case was filed were growing and consuming cannabis. This is in accordance with the fact that they use the marijuana for medical purpose.
The growing and consumption activities were authorized by the state of California; the Controlled Substances Act of the federal government had confiscated the medicines and drugs that were derived from the marijuana plants. Because of the confiscation of the drugs that were from marijuana, the respondents had posted a claim that the infliction of the CSA against them is a violation in the Commerce Clause. The inflictions also had violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment including the 9th and 10th amendments.
Medical necessity is also claimed to be violated with the inflictions of the Controlled Substance Act (AudioCaseFiles, 2007). It was noted that California is a state wherein the use of marijuana for medical purpose is allowed. Without the drugs derived from marijuana, there would be so much pain experienced by the patients and death could result from those pains. Procedural History Angel Raich together with her companions in the field of medicine had sued the government because of the interference done by the federal government to their endeavor of using marijuana for medical purposes.
Their claim is that the federal government had violated the constitution since it is constitutionally right to use marijuana for it (marijuana) was permitted to be used within the premises of the California State. Moreover, the claim included that the marijuana used by the California’s Medical co-ops are not in the name of commerce, nor did they bought the drugs from other states. Thus, the resources used for growing the marijuana plants were only obtained within the premises of the State of California.
Another claim from the Angel Raich was that she had used marijuana to prevent herself from dying because her doctor had claimed that she has allergies to the medicines she was prescribed. The federal government on the other hand claims that it was written in the Controlled Substances Act that it does not permit the legal use of marijuana in terms of medical purposes. Moreover, when the California State will not cease in using marijuana, it would be unfair for the other states not to also use marijuana for medical purpose.
Their claim is not to permit exemption in using marijuana as stated in the US Federal Law. Broad and Narrow Holdings There is a general rule in the Constitution of the United States of America that the constitution is not allowing or permitting police powers to be carried by the federal government. But it was also stated in a clause in the US Constitution that it the federal government will have this limited power in terms of commerce regulation in other countries and within the several states of the country. The clause that had given a limited power to the federal government is the Commerce Clause.
As written in the history of the Commerce Clause, the federal government did only a very little interference with the activities done in the states of the country. The case of Angel Raich is quite simple not like the several cases filed in the Cumpreme Court of the United States. It was very clear that there was no commerce that had undergone in the course of the marijuana usage by the California Medical Co-op. All the activities done by the Raich and company had been within the California State and it was clear that the drugs were purely used for treating illness and diseases, specifically used also by Raich (Guither, 2007).
Doctrinal and Policy Reasoning The case of Wickward v. Filburn which is related to the wheat production was used t ocompare the Raich’s case. In the wheat production case which was also commerce related case, the farmers are regulate the production of wheat in order to have a control in the volume of wheat that is transported within the states of the country. Filburn had a process did not violate the law because he only sold a portion of his wheat and other wheat produced was used for home consumption and other purposes. Filburn had lost the case considering the unsold portion of the wheat (Guither, 2007).
Miscellaneous Justice Sandra Day O’Connor who presented a dissent of the GONZALES V. RAICH case started her statement by citing come of the relevant issues that are related to the case. She had stated the action done by the Commerce Clause authority was related to the Federalism issue among the states. Federalism is the one which encourage innovation if the state of California had agreed to be the laboratory of the entire country and will have the role of doing and performing experiments and studies which would not affect the country.
It is a federal crime according to Justice O’Connor to grow marijuana in your backyard and use it for medical purposes but if the state of California was considered to be a laboratory, then the use of marijuana (for medical purposes) is not a question (Cornell University Law School, 2007). Justice Clarence Thomas had also written a separate dissent of the case. He mentioned that the cultivation as well as consumption of marijuana done by the respondents is not included running in the commerce industry since there was no production for marketing done nor the respondents had bought materials for the cultivation.
Thus, there was no strong evidence that the respondents had violated the Commerce Clause or even any law that was listed in the Constitution. The federal government in return should not have prohibited such activities (Cornell University Law School, 2007). Literature Cited: AudioCaseFiles. (2007). Gonzales v. Raich. Retrieved September 12, 2007 from http://www. audiocasefiles. com/cases/detail/case/8834/ Cornell University Law School (2007). Supreme Court Colloection; GONZALES V. RAICH (03-1454) 545 U. S. 1 (2005) 352 F. 3d 1222, vacated and remanded. Retrieved September 12, 2007 from http://www.
law. cornell. edu/supct/html/03-1454. ZD1. html Cornell University Law School (2007). Supreme Court Colloection; GONZALES V. RAICH (03-1454) 545 U. S. 1 (2005) 352 F. 3d 1222, vacated and remanded. Retrieved September 12, 2007 from http://www. law. cornell. edu/supct/html/03-1454. ZD. html Curtis, Parker, Douglas, Finkleman (2007). Constitutional Law in Context. Volume 1. Second Edition. Guither, Pete. (2007). Raich v. Ashcroft – A Guide to the Supreme Court Case. Drug Warrant. com. Retrieved September 12, 2007 from http://blogs. salon. com/0002762/stories/2004/11/23/raichVAshcroftAGuideToTheS. html