You're In The Agora
Welcome to the Net's best new source for commentary on current events, culture, faith, science and much more.
Faith
Confessing Evangelical Evangelical Outpost He Lives Mere Comments Mirror of Justice Religion Clause Three Hierarchies Science Dispatches from the Culture Wars In the Pipeline New Scientist Tierney Lab Liberty A Constrained Vision Asymmetrical Information Becker-Posner Blog Hit & Run Instapundit Positive Liberty The Agitator Volokh Conspiracy Economics Café Hayek EconLog Environmental Economics Freakonomics Free Exchange Greg Mankiw J. Bradfor DeLong Marginal Revolution The Right Andrew Sullivan Best of the Web Eunomia Hugh Hewitt Michelle Malkin Power Line The American Scene The Corner The Left After the Future Ezra Klein Matthew Yglesias Political Animal Talking Points Memo Errata Daniel Drezner Democracy in America Dilbert Blog Lilek's Bleat Overcoming Bias The Sartorialist Hoosiers Daily Contentions Indiana Barrister Masson's Blog Matthew Stevenson |
|
« Color blind |
Main
| November 29, 2004The Commerce Clause and the Wicked WeedOver at Positive Liberty, history graduate student Jason Kuznicki subjects to scrutiny the Supreme Court case over whether the federal government can block the use of medical marijiuana in a wide-ranging essay. Kuznicki's research specialty is eighteenth-century France, and his blog's mission is the philosophical defense of liberty; the two missions have a natural relationship. Though I do not accept the ideology of the French Revolution--as a Burkean conservative, how on earth could I?--and I suspect that Kuznicki is, at heart, one of the philosophes, still I am constantly impressed by the breadth, variety and penetrating insight of Kuznicki's blog. His essay should be required reading for those who are interested in the drug wars, in how jurisprudence and economic nostrums have intersected, and in how government regulation binds liberty. Interestingly, I am currently working through a couple of historical topics that have served to remind me of how the anonymity and impartiality of regulation can, in certain cases (both actual and theoretical), serve to promote liberty. But Kuznicki makes a very good case that such is -- ahem -- hardly the case with the current applications of the commerce clause, including the restrictions on the growth and use of medicinal marijuana. Posted by Paul Musgrave at November 29, 2004 02:38 PM CommentsKuznicki constant presents this issue as one of government power vs. individual liberty, but really the matter before the court is one of federal power vs. states' rights. Surely he knows this, so the article has the sense of being a spin zone. He's certainly right, though, that the federal government has enormous powers that the Founders never intended, and reversing that (if such is the effect of the medical marijuana decision) would cause a great upheaval. But the principle of limited federal government was a casualty of the Civil War. Posted by: wahoofive at November 29, 2004 06:28 PM | permalink Here is a post that explains why there is not really a contradiction between federalism and individual liberty--and how the one is designed to serve the other: http://federalism.typepad.com/ashcroft_v_raich/2004/11/federalism_and_.html Posted by: Jason Kuznicki at November 30, 2004 05:56 PM | permalink |
|
---- ADVERTISEMENTS ----
|