Commerce Clause under Raich

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
BCLS
Posts: 567
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 9:40 am

Commerce Clause under Raich

Postby BCLS » Sat May 07, 2011 10:16 am

Quick question-- you guys have been so helpful,

Under Raich, we see that a pot is regulable under the commerce clause. How does this fit into the overall CC framework? In Wickard, we were introduced to the aggregation principle, but in Raich, this wasn't really the issue. Rather, the Court said that since pot is economic, and part of a larger economic regulatory scheme, it can be regulated although intrastate.

Scalia, however, expands this further and says if there is a larger regulatory scheme, the regulated activity need not even be economic.

Now, on an exam, if I say, issue X is more like Wickard and Raich, its economic, and thus we can aggregate it, is this being "true" to Raich, since that case only dealt with larger regulatory scheme?

Also, couldnt congress regulate pot because its economic and when aggregated substantially affects interstate commerce?

Thanks everyone!!!!
"

Renzo
Posts: 4265
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:23 am

Re: Commerce Clause under Raich

Postby Renzo » Sat May 07, 2011 12:24 pm

BCLS wrote:Quick question-- you guys have been so helpful,

Under Raich, we see that a pot is regulable under the commerce clause. How does this fit into the overall CC framework? In Wickard, we were introduced to the aggregation principle, but in Raich, this wasn't really the issue. Rather, the Court said that since pot is economic, and part of a larger economic regulatory scheme, it can be regulated although intrastate.

Scalia, however, expands this further and says if there is a larger regulatory scheme, the regulated activity need not even be economic.

Now, on an exam, if I say, issue X is more like Wickard and Raich, its economic, and thus we can aggregate it, is this being "true" to Raich, since that case only dealt with larger regulatory scheme?

Also, couldnt congress regulate pot because its economic and when aggregated substantially affects interstate commerce?

Thanks everyone!!!!
"


In Wickard, the logic was that a farmer who grows excess grain won't go to the market to purchase what he needs, and that behavior effects the grain market, albeit in a teeny tiny way.

Since there is no legal pot market, there was a claim that this logic didn't extend to pot--if the pot farmers didn't grow it themselves, there's no market where they could go purchase what they need, because it's illegal. This is the argument the court rejected, saying that if Congress wants to regulate the interstate pot market they can, and they can regulate a pot growers activity, even if that is completely non-market, so long as it's necessary to Congress' broader regulatory scheme.

BCLS
Posts: 567
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 9:40 am

Re: Commerce Clause under Raich

Postby BCLS » Sat May 07, 2011 12:30 pm

Renzo wrote:
BCLS wrote:Quick question-- you guys have been so helpful,

Under Raich, we see that a pot is regulable under the commerce clause. How does this fit into the overall CC framework? In Wickard, we were introduced to the aggregation principle, but in Raich, this wasn't really the issue. Rather, the Court said that since pot is economic, and part of a larger economic regulatory scheme, it can be regulated although intrastate.

Scalia, however, expands this further and says if there is a larger regulatory scheme, the regulated activity need not even be economic.

Now, on an exam, if I say, issue X is more like Wickard and Raich, its economic, and thus we can aggregate it, is this being "true" to Raich, since that case only dealt with larger regulatory scheme?

Also, couldnt congress regulate pot because its economic and when aggregated substantially affects interstate commerce?

Thanks everyone!!!!
"


In Wickard, the logic was that a farmer who grows excess grain won't go to the market to purchase what he needs, and that behavior effects the grain market, albeit in a teeny tiny way.

Since there is no legal pot market, there was a claim that this logic didn't extend to pot--if the pot farmers didn't grow it themselves, there's no market where they could go purchase what they need, because it's illegal. This is the argument the court rejected, saying that if Congress wants to regulate the interstate pot market they can, and they can regulate a pot growers activity, even if that is completely non-market, so long as it's necessary to Congress' broader regulatory scheme.


So the court was saying that pot is a non-economic activity? I thought that they conclude pot was economic, defined as production, consumption, and distribution of commodities. Thanks for your help!

User avatar
bjsesq
TLS Poet Laureate
Posts: 13383
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 3:02 am

Re: Commerce Clause under Raich

Postby bjsesq » Sat May 07, 2011 12:31 pm

Renzo wrote:In Wickard, the logic was that a farmer who grows excess grain won't go to the market to purchase what he needs, and that behavior effects the grain market, albeit in a teeny tiny way.

Since there is no legal pot market, there was a claim that this logic didn't extend to pot--if the pot farmers didn't grow it themselves, there's no market where they could go purchase what they need, because it's illegal. This is the argument the court rejected, saying that if Congress wants to regulate the interstate pot market they can, and they can regulate a pot growers activity, even if that is completely non-market, so long as it's necessary to Congress' broader regulatory scheme.


That sounded more like Scalia's concurrence. I was under the impression that the majority opinion says that the growing and using pot in California tended to frustrate Congress' aim to eliminate the market for the commodity because, taken in the aggregate, it had a substantial effect on the market. IRIC correctly, the court used a very Wickard-esque analysis, despite the fact that it was an illegal commodity. I thought Scalia was the one who focused on the larger regulatory scheme.

BCLS
Posts: 567
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 9:40 am

Re: Commerce Clause under Raich

Postby BCLS » Sat May 07, 2011 12:33 pm

bjsesq wrote:
Renzo wrote:In Wickard, the logic was that a farmer who grows excess grain won't go to the market to purchase what he needs, and that behavior effects the grain market, albeit in a teeny tiny way.

Since there is no legal pot market, there was a claim that this logic didn't extend to pot--if the pot farmers didn't grow it themselves, there's no market where they could go purchase what they need, because it's illegal. This is the argument the court rejected, saying that if Congress wants to regulate the interstate pot market they can, and they can regulate a pot growers activity, even if that is completely non-market, so long as it's necessary to Congress' broader regulatory scheme.


That sounded more like Scalia's concurrence. I was under the impression that the majority opinion says that the growing and using pot in California tended to frustrate Congress' aim to eliminate the market for the commodity because, taken in the aggregate, it had a substantial effect on the market. IRIC correctly, the court used a very Wickard-esque analysis, despite the fact that it was an illegal commodity. I thought Scalia was the one who focused on the larger regulatory scheme.

I think they both focused on the regulatory scheme, however, Scalia was the most expansive, saying that even a non-economic activity, if part of a larger regulatory scheme, is regulable.

Renzo
Posts: 4265
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:23 am

Re: Commerce Clause under Raich

Postby Renzo » Sat May 07, 2011 12:37 pm

BCLS wrote:
Renzo wrote:
BCLS wrote:Quick question-- you guys have been so helpful,

Under Raich, we see that a pot is regulable under the commerce clause. How does this fit into the overall CC framework? In Wickard, we were introduced to the aggregation principle, but in Raich, this wasn't really the issue. Rather, the Court said that since pot is economic, and part of a larger economic regulatory scheme, it can be regulated although intrastate.

Scalia, however, expands this further and says if there is a larger regulatory scheme, the regulated activity need not even be economic.

Now, on an exam, if I say, issue X is more like Wickard and Raich, its economic, and thus we can aggregate it, is this being "true" to Raich, since that case only dealt with larger regulatory scheme?

Also, couldnt congress regulate pot because its economic and when aggregated substantially affects interstate commerce?

Thanks everyone!!!!
"


In Wickard, the logic was that a farmer who grows excess grain won't go to the market to purchase what he needs, and that behavior effects the grain market, albeit in a teeny tiny way.

Since there is no legal pot market, there was a claim that this logic didn't extend to pot--if the pot farmers didn't grow it themselves, there's no market where they could go purchase what they need, because it's illegal. This is the argument the court rejected, saying that if Congress wants to regulate the interstate pot market they can, and they can regulate a pot growers activity, even if that is completely non-market, so long as it's necessary to Congress' broader regulatory scheme.


So the court was saying that pot is a non-economic activity? I thought that they conclude pot was economic, defined as production, consumption, and distribution of commodities. Thanks for your help!



They didn't say that all pot is non-economic. The growers in Raich tried to distinguish Wickard by saying that since pot is illegal, unlike wheat, their growing pot couldn't effect a pot market that doesn't exist. The court batted this down and said, no, there is still a national pot market being regulated, even if it's being regulated by total prohibition. So whether or not the growers in question were actually effecting market prices (via the aggregation theory) didn't matter; either way it was still permissible for Congress to regulate them as part of the broader regulatory scheme

BCLS
Posts: 567
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 9:40 am

Re: Commerce Clause under Raich

Postby BCLS » Sat May 07, 2011 12:42 pm

Renzo wrote:
BCLS wrote:
Renzo wrote:
BCLS wrote:Quick question-- you guys have been so helpful,

Under Raich, we see that a pot is regulable under the commerce clause. How does this fit into the overall CC framework? In Wickard, we were introduced to the aggregation principle, but in Raich, this wasn't really the issue. Rather, the Court said that since pot is economic, and part of a larger economic regulatory scheme, it can be regulated although intrastate.

Scalia, however, expands this further and says if there is a larger regulatory scheme, the regulated activity need not even be economic.

Now, on an exam, if I say, issue X is more like Wickard and Raich, its economic, and thus we can aggregate it, is this being "true" to Raich, since that case only dealt with larger regulatory scheme?

Also, couldnt congress regulate pot because its economic and when aggregated substantially affects interstate commerce?

Thanks everyone!!!!
"


In Wickard, the logic was that a farmer who grows excess grain won't go to the market to purchase what he needs, and that behavior effects the grain market, albeit in a teeny tiny way.

Since there is no legal pot market, there was a claim that this logic didn't extend to pot--if the pot farmers didn't grow it themselves, there's no market where they could go purchase what they need, because it's illegal. This is the argument the court rejected, saying that if Congress wants to regulate the interstate pot market they can, and they can regulate a pot growers activity, even if that is completely non-market, so long as it's necessary to Congress' broader regulatory scheme.


So the court was saying that pot is a non-economic activity? I thought that they conclude pot was economic, defined as production, consumption, and distribution of commodities. Thanks for your help!



They didn't say that all pot is non-economic. The growers in Raich tried to distinguish Wickard by saying that since pot is illegal, unlike wheat, their growing pot couldn't effect a pot market that doesn't exist. The court batted this down and said, no, there is still a national pot market being regulated, even if it's being regulated by total prohibition. So whether or not the growers in question were actually effecting market prices (via the aggregation theory) didn't matter; either way it was still permissible for Congress to regulate them as part of the broader regulatory scheme


Got ya. So implicit in the court's reasoning is that if pot is economic, the wickard aggregationg principle applies. You're saying they resorted to the larger regulatory scheme..which I understand, but why did they do it?

If we presume under the regulatory scheme, the majority in Raich said that if pot is economic, and there's a larger regulatory scheme, its regulable.

However, if it's economic, we also know from Wickard we can aggregate effects.

So, could't Raich have just used the aggregation principle? The majority concedes that in this case its economic activity. Why resort to larger regulatory scheme? Obviously if you're Scalia, this is the best way to go because he thinks even noneconomic activity can be regulating under this regulatory scheme argument. But if you're the majority, and you conclude its economic activity, why bother?

Thanks!!

User avatar
pleasetryagain
Posts: 762
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 1:04 am

Re: Commerce Clause under Raich

Postby pleasetryagain » Tue May 10, 2011 12:07 pm

Renzo wrote:

They didn't say that all pot is non-economic. The growers in Raich tried to distinguish Wickard by saying that since pot is illegal, unlike wheat, their growing pot couldn't effect a pot market that doesn't exist. The court batted this down and said, no, there is still a national pot market being regulated, even if it's being regulated by total prohibition. So whether or not the growers in question were actually effecting market prices (via the aggregation theory) didn't matter; either way it was still permissible for Congress to regulate them as part of the broader regulatory scheme


Correct. I don't remember the categories because I took con law exam last week and purged my brain f most of it but it was something like "production, sale, etc" of a commodity is economic activity, therefore growing pot (a commodity) was economic regardless of its ultimate use. Same logic behind regulating the coal industry, etc which we know congress can now do..




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: brendo17, daisrt and 7 guests