Question

In 1996, California legalized medical marijuana. However, that state law conflicted with the federal Controlled Substances Act, which made the possession of marijuana illegal. When federal agents from the Drug Enforcement Agency confiscated the drug from a medical marijuana user’s home, a group of people prescribed medical marijuana sued the federal government. They argued that the Controlled Substances Act exceeded the government’s authority since the use of medical marijuana was within the state of California, not between states. The case reached the Supreme Court in 2004 in Gonzales v. Raich. The Court ruled 6:3 that the government did have authority to prohibit medical marijuana possession and use, even though it was legal in California. It reasoned that since marijuana sales are part of a national market, the federal government can control marijuana possession.

1. Identify the constitutional clause that is common to both Gonzales v. Raich and US v. Lopez.

2. Based

Answer 1

Identify the constitutional clause that is common to both Gonzales v. Raich and US v. Lopez.

Based on the constitutional clause identified in Part A, explain why the facts of Gonzales v. Raich led to a different holding than the holding in US v. Lopez.

Answer:

The answer is below

Step-by-step explanation:

1. The constitutional clause that is common to both Gonzales v. Raich and the US v. Lopez is the COMMERCE CLAUSE; this deals with the federal government regulating interstate commerce.

2. In the case of Gonzales v. Raich, the Supreme Court ruling was based on the premise that the permission to restrict medical marijuana possession and use is within the control of the federal government under COMMERCE CLAUSE.

However, in the case of U.S Lopez, the Supreme Court passed a judgment that the COMMERCE CLAUSE does not give the federal government power to regulate the possession of firearms on the school premises.