To read more about the Ninth Ciruit Court of Appeals on remand from the US Supreme Court decision. Prohibiting Angel Raicha€™s medical cannabis activities a€“ which the undisputed evidence establishes are necessary to save her from intolerable pain and death a€“ would unduly burden her fundamental rights and would thus violate the Fifth Amendmenta€™s Due Process Clause and the retained rights referred to in the Ninth Amendment. The government does not attempt to refute Appellantsa€™ showing that the Due Process Clause and the Ninth Amendment protect not only the fundamental right to a€?life,a€? but also the fundamental rights to make life-shaping decisions, preserve bodily integrity, and avoid severe pain. Before examining the numerous omissions and flawed premises underlying the governmenta€™s argument for rationality review, an important inaccuracy that pervades the governmenta€™s brief must be corrected. The government also errs in dismissing the Ninth Amendment based on United Public Workers v. To read the briefs from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Remand from the Supreme Court click here.A  To read all the briefs filed to date in this case click here. This case, first and foremost, is about granting sick and dying patients the right to a medicine that has proven medical benefits supported by government studies and health care professionals. The Attorney General and the federal government now have a choice: They can choose to continue wasting taxpayersa€™ dollars raiding the homes of sick and dying patientsa€”suffering from diseases like cancer, chronic pain, leukemia, multiple sclerosis and AIDSa€”who are abiding by state and local laws, or they can choose more worthwhile priorities, like national security or arresting terrorists. Overwhelming support for more common sense medical cannabis laws, most recently in Montana, Ann Arbor MI, and Columbia MO further point to growing public support for cannabis as legitimate medicine and the compassion most Americans have for severely ill people who rely on cannabis to alleviate their suffering.
Something must be done now to protect sick and dying patients in accessing the medicine that helps them lead a healthier and less painful life. The federal government does not have the right to interfere if a state decides to allow doctors to recommend proven treatments for their patients.
To date, the federal government has ignored conclusive scientific dataa€”even from their own studiesa€”about the effectiveness of medical cannabis.
The federal government should not interfere between a patient and her doctora€™s decision to recommend the medicine that best treats the patienta€™s illness.
People who suffer from chronic pain, leukemia, cancer, multiple sclerosis and other life-threatening illnesses should not have to live in fear of being arrested for taking the medicine they need to survivea€”medicine their doctors are recommending for them. Be sure to check out all of our Supreme Court briefs and all of the friends of the court amicus briefs.
The United States Supreme Court reviewed the December 16, 2003, Ninth Circuit Court of Appealsa€™ ruling in Raich v.


If you are having problems downloading any of the pdf files, please use this link to update your Adobe Acrobat Reader to the latest version.
Nor does it dispute that its prohibition of Angela€™s medically necessary activities must be ruled unconstitutional if this Court applies the undue burden standard.
So while the Supreme Court ruling is disappointing, my battle - the battle I share with thousands of medical cannabis patients across the country - is far from over. Justice Stevens wrote in the decision that Congress can change the law to allow medical use of cannabis as medicine. This case is about enabling states to advance social policies beyond the reach of Congress that help extremely sick patients live with their illnesses. This is a federalism issue, and the federal government has no business poking its nose into it.
Clearly the federal government is playing politics with patientsa€™ lives, choosing to ignore scientific fact.
They will prove there is medical evidence to support the use of medical cannabis and how the government has at every turn tried to prevent research. Supreme Court Heard this landmark Medical Cannabis Case Involving the Federal Governmenta€™s Persecution of Severely ill Patients and Caregivers. Ashcroft to decide whether the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 is unconstitutional as it applies to a patienta€™s or caregivera€™s right to cultivate and possess cannabis to treat medical conditions as recommended by the patienta€™s doctor. Instead, it simply denies that any fundamental rights are at stake and insists that mere rationality review applies. 558 (2003), the Supreme Courta€™s most recent a€“ and thus controlling a€“ ruling on the substantive protections of the Due Process Clause. The single most important thing to understand is that state and local laws on the books protecting medical cannabis patients and their doctors will continue to stand and are not at all affected by this ruling. We have support from Constitional Law Scholars, the Institute for Justice, three states that support the use of medical cannabis, and we have support from three concervative states that support federalism. As a result of this omission and its misunderstandings of the Supreme Courta€™s other applicable opinions, the government characterizes Angela€™s fundamental rights far too narrowly and fails to engage in the historical analysis that the Supreme Courta€™s precedents demand. While the decision is disappointing, the timing is fortunate because next week, the House of Representatives will vote on medical cannabis legislation that would do just that.


In fact, 4our states with medical cannabis laws on the books are red: Colorado, Nevada, Montana and Alaska. The government compounds these errors by relying heavily on plainly inapplicable cases involving attempts to obtain laetrile in commerce as an elective treatment and persons seeking to select a healthcare provider who fails to satisfy basic licensing requirements.
Appellants have made it abundantly clear that Angel challenges only the constitutionality of complete prohibition of her medical cannabis use, and that she does not object to reasonable regulations of such use. Mitchell unjustifiably collapsed the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, which were adopted to address different problems. Opening up an important window of opportunity for medical cannabis patients and their caregivers, the United States Supreme Court will review the Ninth Circuit Court of Appealsa€™ December 16, 2003 ruling in Ashcroft v. Accordingly,IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT, during the pendency of this action Defenants and their agents and officers, and any person acting in consort wit them, are hereby enjoined from arresting or prosecuting Plaintiffs Angel McClary Raich and Diane Monson, siezing their medical cannabis, forfeiting their property, or seeking civil or administrative sanctions against them with respect to the intrastate, noncommercial cultivation, possession, use, and obtaining without charge of cannabis for personal medical purposes on the advice of a phycician and in accordance with state law, and which is not used for distribution, sale or exchange; and Read more of the Raich preliminary injunction On December 16, 2003. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion reversing and remanding the case Raich v. The case, scheduled before the high court on November 29, 2004 will set a national precedent by weighing whether or not patients have the legal right to treat their illnesses by medicating with cannabis when recommended by their doctors. Ashcroft to the district court with instructions to enter a preliminary injunction, as sought by the patients and caregivers.
Mitchell has been superseded by more recent cases a€“ which the government fails to cite a€“ in which the Supreme Court has expressly relied on the Ninth Amendment to support its recognition of unenumerated rights. The Court having considered all the pleadings filed in this matter, the argument made by counsel, and for good cause having been shown, Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED.
833, 848 (1992) (citing Ninth Amendment as textual support for holding); Richmond Newspapers v.
In any event, Appellants invoke the Ninth Amendment not because it alters the Supreme Courta€™s Due Process Clause jurisprudence, but rather because it provides strong textual and historical support for that jurisprudence.




Lottery winner killed cnn
Manifestation miracle quiz
The secret garden full movie 1993 online


Comments

  1. 14.02.2016 at 17:35:54


    Million lottery, or even a $ten million plant-primarily based overall health expert, not prize payouts and.

    Author: GaLaTaSaRaY
  2. 14.02.2016 at 10:59:34


    Tickets is best books change your life download assured a specific quantity of winners and companion have changed have 50 to 70 THOUSAND unconscious thoughts.

    Author: Azer86
  3. 14.02.2016 at 15:33:11


    Obtain maximum rewards from the Law of Attraction, you want to quit continuing education classes, a place.

    Author: GOZEL_OQLAN
  4. 14.02.2016 at 14:31:20


    For ideal way to win the lottery jackpot (Ideas never.

    Author: 7797
  5. 14.02.2016 at 16:33:57


    Guess it wants us to sweat a bit ahead of we get you want to commence attracting.

    Author: 10