The case involving Gonzales v. Raich entails a violation of a commerce clause that concerns the principle of medical necessity. The defendant used homegrown marijuana for medical purposes in California. The use of marijuana on medical grounds was considered legal as defined in the California law but was considered illegal under the national law in the United States. An officer from the Sheriff together with an agent from a drug enforcement organization damaged the marijuana plants citing them to be illegal under the federal law as defined by the constitution. The Controlled Substances Act considered the marijuana plants to be illegal thus requires being destroyed based on the federal laws. However, the California law legalizes the use of marijuana for medical purposes thus permitting to grow the plants to use them for medical purposes (Bostrom, 2005). Based on the given facts, Monson and Raich sued, basing their claims on the enforcement of federal laws that resulted in a violation of the law that permits individuals to use marijuana for medical purposes.
The main issue, in this case, involves the implementation of the federal laws concerning the illegality of using marijuana in within different states in the United States. The issue concerns the question of whether the Congress can regulate homegrown marijuana that is meant for medical purposes (Bostrom, 2005). The central question within the given case concerns powers of the Congress as defined by the constitution about the regulation of use and abuse of substances entails powers to prohibit the cultivation of marijuana that is permitted to be used for medical purposes. The issue in this cases results from a contradiction that arises from the provisions given by the California law and those that are given by the federal laws in the United States. The court will seek to answer the given case based on facts concerning the implementation of the constitution given the provisions of the California laws and the federal laws (Ramsey, 2012).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The decision of the court is based on the provisions of the constitution regarding the illegality of the use of marijuana and the exception that concerns the medical use of the substance. The ruling involved three judges that incorporated different ideas and opinion concerning the given case to come up with a ruling that incorporates all the relevant concerns relating to the issue presented in the case (Ramsey, 2012). The opinion of the court pointed out that the respondents in the case presented did not dispute the fact that Congress had the mandate to regulate the use of marijuana that is not prescribed for medical purposes. The court reasoned that banning the growth of marijuana helps to limit the use of marijuana for other purposes other than for medical use.
The main reason for the opinion given by the court concerning the given cases involves the provisions laws in the constitution concerning the regulation of marijuana use. The ruling undertook various considerations concerning the powers are given to the Congress about the use and abuse of substances. The court ensured that various aspect of the federal and California laws are considered to prevent cases of contradiction. Undertaking proper considerations in a given case helps in ensuring that a proper ruling is made about the case presented.
References
Bostrom, B. A. (2005). Gonzales v. Raich In the Supreme Court of the United States. Issues L. & Med. , 21 , 47.
Ramsey, M. D. (2012). American federalism and the tragedy of Gonzales v Raich. U. Queensland LJ , 31 , 203.
