American Federalism and the Tragedy of Gonzales V Raich

By Ramsey, Michael D. | University of Queensland Law Journal, December 2012 | Go to article overview

American Federalism and the Tragedy of Gonzales V Raich


Ramsey, Michael D., University of Queensland Law Journal


In this essay I contend that Gonzales v Raich (2005), (1) popularly known as the medical marijuana case, was the U.S. Supreme Court's worst modern decision. The indictment rests on four propositions. First, Raich is shockingly implausible even on its own merits. Second, Raich involves a matter--federalism and the constitutional division of power between the national and state governments--that is core to the U.S. constitutional system as reflected in the Constitution's text and history. Third, Raich came at a pivotal time in which the Court had just begun to reinvigorate, after long neglect, judicial protection of federalism, and it offered an opportunity to expand that protection by significantly shifting the American legal culture regarding federalism at little political cost. Fourth, Raich instead decisively undercut the Court's attempts to return American legal culture to founding principles in matters of federalism, resulting among other things in the Court's inability to defend federalism in the politically far more important and divisive challenge to the federal health care legislation in 2012. And, as a bonus, Raich denied two innocent women relief from painful physical suffering for no good reason.

It is hard to think of another modern decision in which the Court, given an easy opportunity to help restore a core principle of constitutional design, instead so decisively and unnecessarily turned the other way. Of course, for scholars, commentators and policymakers who favor wholly national solutions and distrust judicial enforcement of federalism, Raich was a triumph not a failure, for the same reasons. Critically, though, the outcome in Raich could not have happened without the votes of Justices most committed to judicial federalism--and that fact makes it all the greater a tragedy for those who seek to restore the constitutional balance between the states and the national government.

In Bond v United States (2011), Justice Anthony Kennedy--writing for a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court--gave a concise and powerful summary of the values of American federalism:

   The federal system rests on what might at first seem a
   counterintuitive insight, that freedom is enhanced by the creation
   of two governments, not one....

   Federalism is more than an exercise in setting the boundary between
   different institutions of government for their own integrity. State
   sovereignty is not just an end in itself: Rather, federalism
   secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of
   sovereign power....

   ... The federal structure allows local policies more sensitive to
   the diverse needs of a heterogeneous society, permits innovation
   and experimentation, enables greater citizen involvement in
   democratic processes, and makes government more responsive by
   putting the States in competition for a mobile citizenry.
   Federalism secures the freedom of the individual. It allows States
   to respond, through the enactment of positive law, to the
   initiative of those who seek a voice in shaping the destiny of
   their own times without having to rely solely upon the political
   processes that control a remote central power....

   Federalism also protects the liberty of all persons within a State
   by ensuring that laws enacted in excess of delegated governmental
   power cannot direct or control their actions. By denying any one
   government complete jurisdiction over all the concerns of public
   life, federalism protects the liberty of the individual from
   arbitrary power. When government acts in excess of its lawful
   powers, that liberty is at stake. (2)

The decision in Bond, however, sustained no actual right nor invalidated any law; it simply concluded that the plaintiff's challenge to a federal law as beyond Congress' enumerated powers could be raised in court. (3) Fundamentally, though, if Justice Kennedy is correct that 'liberty is at stake' in federalism cases, protection of liberty should call forth some meaningful judicial action--not simply to allow such challenges, as in Bond, but in fact to establish material federalism limits upon the national government's action, as set forth in the Constitution. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • A full archive of books and articles related to this one
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

American Federalism and the Tragedy of Gonzales V Raich
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

    Already a member? Log in now.