Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I am Lutheran.
That said, this is a toughie. Can the public use the playground? That would be the biggest question for me. If it is predominantly for church use, then I think there's a problem. Are the student mostly from the church or community? If the church is agreeing to public use if it is given the grant, I think the state has a problem.
Very few if any school playgrounds are open to the public, including public schools, they are restricted to their students and staff. The real question is the program really about keeping kids safer on playgrounds or not?
Depends on the city- here in San Francisco there is a program that opens up public school playgrounds to public use after school and on weekends- not all schools, but it is a nice way to add 'park land' to cities.
The case is in regards to a state program that provides a sater playground material made from recycled tires to schools for their playgrounds- I don't think anyone has disputed that the material itself would make the school/church playground safer- its being used at many other playgrounds- the only dispute is the wording of the State Constitution which prohibits direct or indirect financing of religious institutions.
It is a state rights issue versus a religious rights question.
Actually it's a discrimination issue as I see it. Providing a safer playground for kids has nothing to do with establishing a religion.
If you look at history, the Court hast stepped in many times ruling on state law and state constitutional amendments. Again, if you read briefs from the following it will answer your questions:Supreme Court to hear case on church and state - CNNPolitics.com
The Supreme Court heard arguments this week on whether or not the State of Missouri's state constitution is unconstitutional because it bans the state from providing direct or indirect financial assistance to churches and religious institutions.
Do you think that the Supreme Court should be able to overturn a state's constitution because the SCOTUS determines that the state constitution is unconstitutional?
I think the Supreme Court should be able to do so.
What remains to see is whether or not the Supreme Court will decide that these kinds of State constitutionals are unconstitutional.
Fletcher v. Peck
Reynolds v. Simms
Griswold v. Connecticut
Evenwald v. Abbot
And you can even use Gideon v. Wainwright where states were told they must provide indigent defense. Court superceds states all the time.
Lest I forget religious cases of Engel v. Vitale, Abington v. Schemmp, and Wisconsin v. Yoder.
Judicial Review IS the SCOTUS check on the Executive and Legislative branches to balance the powers of the triad. The truth of the matter is you simply don't like that ability to check the overreach of the Congress or Executive all the time and would prefer to be selective based on the whim of the moment.Actually, no. They assumed that power in Marbury v. Madison and there needs to be a check on that power....9, unelected, politically appointed lawyers should not have the only say on what is or is not Constitutional.
If you want to get rid of judicial review and wipe their precedents from the books, then you'd have to say good bye to all of your 2A gun law protections upheld by SCOTUS, too. So get rid of judicial review and your Amendment II rights at the same time, FOOL! In for a fucking penny, in for a bloody pound, shit for brains!
So who checks the court when they enable overreach by the other two branches? Under current precedent the federal government has the authority to say you can't have a vegetable garden for your own consumption and can fine you if you do. The court gave them that authority, not the Constitution.
The American people of course- that is what elections and Constitutional amendments are for.
I don't think anyone believes that our system is absolutely perfect and gets everything right every time.
But having courts that can provide checks to Executive or Congressional overreach is better than the alternative- having no branch of government that can say that an Executive order or a State law is unconstitutional or violates the constitutional rights of Americans.
Once again, who checks the courts when they are complicit in the overreach. The Constitution gives congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. That means the good or services must cross State lines. The courts granted them the power to regulate anything that might have the most remote tangential effect on interstate commerce, whether the goods or services cross State lines or not and even if the goods are produced for personal consumption and are never entered into commerce.
So all you have is bullshit and I'm expected to take YOUR word that it was an actual case before SCOTUS involved and a Scalia decision for a hook? Nothing new from you. Once a liar, always a fucking liar, Tex! You're still all fucking hat and no cattle!If you are referring to a specific case reviewed by SCOTUS, cite it! I won't be drawn into a hypothetical with a known dissembler and liar! You're still to fucking stupid to understand the full scope of Constitutional law, huh Tex!Judicial Review IS the SCOTUS check on the Executive and Legislative branches to balance the powers of the triad. The truth of the matter is you simply don't like that ability to check the overreach of the Congress or Executive all the time and would prefer to be selective based on the whim of the moment.Actually, no. They assumed that power in Marbury v. Madison and there needs to be a check on that power....9, unelected, politically appointed lawyers should not have the only say on what is or is not Constitutional.
If you want to get rid of judicial review and wipe their precedents from the books, then you'd have to say good bye to all of your 2A gun law protections upheld by SCOTUS, too. So get rid of judicial review and your Amendment II rights at the same time, FOOL! In for a fucking penny, in for a bloody pound, shit for brains!
So who checks the court when they enable overreach by the other two branches? Under current precedent the federal government has the authority to say you can't have a vegetable garden for your own consumption and can fine you if you do. The court gave them that authority, not the Constitution.
I don't remember the case name, but it's not hypothetical. A farmer was fined for growing grains for his own use on his property because the feds wanted to support the price of grains by restricting it's growth. The court upheld the fines even though the grain never entered commerce. So using that precedent, if the government decides they need to support the prices of vegetables, they could fine you for growing your own. In fact that same principle was used against an individual growing marijuana for personal consumption even though the government was essentially supporting and protecting an illegal market. Scalia really stepped on his dick on that one.
Supreme Court to hear case on church and state - CNNPolitics.com
The Supreme Court heard arguments this week on whether or not the State of Missouri's state constitution is unconstitutional because it bans the state from providing direct or indirect financial assistance to churches and religious institutions.
Do you think that the Supreme Court should be able to overturn a state's constitution because the SCOTUS determines that the state constitution is unconstitutional?
I think the Supreme Court should be able to do so.
What remains to see is whether or not the Supreme Court will decide that these kinds of State constitutionals are unconstitutional.
Why bother having them ?
The SCOTUS wondered off the reservation a long long time ago.
But to answer your questions: No, they should not be able to comment on a States Constitution unless it impacts the federal government.
The 1st Amendment says "Congress shall make no laws...."
It says nothing about the states and in fact states had state sponsored religion well into the 1820's. Nobody ever objected.
Supreme Court to hear case on church and state - CNNPolitics.com
The Supreme Court heard arguments this week on whether or not the State of Missouri's state constitution is unconstitutional because it bans the state from providing direct or indirect financial assistance to churches and religious institutions.
Do you think that the Supreme Court should be able to overturn a state's constitution because the SCOTUS determines that the state constitution is unconstitutional?
I think the Supreme Court should be able to do so.
What remains to see is whether or not the Supreme Court will decide that these kinds of State constitutionals are unconstitutional.
Why bother having them ?
The SCOTUS wondered off the reservation a long long time ago.
But to answer your questions: No, they should not be able to comment on a States Constitution unless it impacts the federal government.
The 1st Amendment says "Congress shall make no laws...."
It says nothing about the states and in fact states had state sponsored religion well into the 1820's. Nobody ever objected.
The 14th Amendment made it clear that the protections of the Bill of Rights extends to state laws also.
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
So all you have is bullshit and I'm expected to take YOUR word that it was an actual case before SCOTUS involved and a Scalia decision for a hook? Nothing new from you. Once a liar, always a fucking liar, Tex! You're still all fucking hat and no cattle!If you are referring to a specific case reviewed by SCOTUS, cite it! I won't be drawn into a hypothetical with a known dissembler and liar! You're still to fucking stupid to understand the full scope of Constitutional law, huh Tex!Judicial Review IS the SCOTUS check on the Executive and Legislative branches to balance the powers of the triad. The truth of the matter is you simply don't like that ability to check the overreach of the Congress or Executive all the time and would prefer to be selective based on the whim of the moment.Actually, no. They assumed that power in Marbury v. Madison and there needs to be a check on that power....9, unelected, politically appointed lawyers should not have the only say on what is or is not Constitutional.
If you want to get rid of judicial review and wipe their precedents from the books, then you'd have to say good bye to all of your 2A gun law protections upheld by SCOTUS, too. So get rid of judicial review and your Amendment II rights at the same time, FOOL! In for a fucking penny, in for a bloody pound, shit for brains!
So who checks the court when they enable overreach by the other two branches? Under current precedent the federal government has the authority to say you can't have a vegetable garden for your own consumption and can fine you if you do. The court gave them that authority, not the Constitution.
I don't remember the case name, but it's not hypothetical. A farmer was fined for growing grains for his own use on his property because the feds wanted to support the price of grains by restricting it's growth. The court upheld the fines even though the grain never entered commerce. So using that precedent, if the government decides they need to support the prices of vegetables, they could fine you for growing your own. In fact that same principle was used against an individual growing marijuana for personal consumption even though the government was essentially supporting and protecting an illegal market. Scalia really stepped on his dick on that one.
The first mistake was the uniting of 13 independent nations into one big clusterfuck.
The Court often overrule states...but sometimes they side with them too. Usally involves Congress and establishment clause and federal government always seems to win.If you look at history, the Court hast stepped in many times ruling on state law and state constitutional amendments. Again, if you read briefs from the following it will answer your questions:Supreme Court to hear case on church and state - CNNPolitics.com
The Supreme Court heard arguments this week on whether or not the State of Missouri's state constitution is unconstitutional because it bans the state from providing direct or indirect financial assistance to churches and religious institutions.
Do you think that the Supreme Court should be able to overturn a state's constitution because the SCOTUS determines that the state constitution is unconstitutional?
I think the Supreme Court should be able to do so.
What remains to see is whether or not the Supreme Court will decide that these kinds of State constitutionals are unconstitutional.
Fletcher v. Peck
Reynolds v. Simms
Griswold v. Connecticut
Evenwald v. Abbot
And you can even use Gideon v. Wainwright where states were told they must provide indigent defense. Court superceds states all the time.
Lest I forget religious cases of Engel v. Vitale, Abington v. Schemmp, and Wisconsin v. Yoder.
Oh I don't disagree with you at all.
I pose the question because I was curious as to how people look at the issue of state's rights versus the Supreme Court when it comes to issues.
I happen to believe that the Supreme Court can and should be judge of whether a state's constitution or law is unconstitutional or not.
Gideon ruling did that.Supreme Court to hear case on church and state - CNNPolitics.com
The Supreme Court heard arguments this week on whether or not the State of Missouri's state constitution is unconstitutional because it bans the state from providing direct or indirect financial assistance to churches and religious institutions.
Do you think that the Supreme Court should be able to overturn a state's constitution because the SCOTUS determines that the state constitution is unconstitutional?
I think the Supreme Court should be able to do so.
What remains to see is whether or not the Supreme Court will decide that these kinds of State constitutionals are unconstitutional.
Why bother having them ?
The SCOTUS wondered off the reservation a long long time ago.
But to answer your questions: No, they should not be able to comment on a States Constitution unless it impacts the federal government.
The 1st Amendment says "Congress shall make no laws...."
It says nothing about the states and in fact states had state sponsored religion well into the 1820's. Nobody ever objected.
The 14th Amendment made it clear that the protections of the Bill of Rights extends to state laws also.
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
How can you even ask this question? Mississippi's state constitution codified Slavery. That was the issue.I don't think there's any overturning of a constitution issue. Rather it seems to be about what constitutes a "religious activity." Of course the founders did nto want public money going to church buildings. But, sectarian nonprofits operating playgrounds can get the money. I'm aware of churches that get around this sectarian/non-sectarian non profit distinction by forming nominally independent separate entities to operate soup kitchens/food banks, and even an idependent but religiously affiliated school.Do you think that the Supreme Court should be able to overturn a state's constitution if the SCOTUS determines that the state constitution is unconstitutional?The Supreme Court does not go and pick cases to hear, they're brought before them and then they decided to hear the case or not. Constitutionals are walks by the way.
In the case of Missouri and several other states, the prohibition is hardwired into the State constitution.
Again- I am asking is if anyone has a problem with the Supreme Court overturning a provision in a State constitution by finding it unconstitutional?
It is a state's rights issue versus a bill of rights issue.
Of course the Supreme Court should be able to overturn a state Constitution. If a state decided to bring back slavery, or outlaw all guns, or ban Fox News, the Supreme Court is our last defense.Supreme Court to hear case on church and state - CNNPolitics.com
The Supreme Court heard arguments this week on whether or not the State of Missouri's state constitution is unconstitutional because it bans the state from providing direct or indirect financial assistance to churches and religious institutions.
Do you think that the Supreme Court should be able to overturn a state's constitution because the SCOTUS determines that the state constitution is unconstitutional?
I think the Supreme Court should be able to do so.
What remains to see is whether or not the Supreme Court will decide that these kinds of State constitutionals are unconstitutional.
The should not be able to overturn propositions voted on by the people of California that said marriage is strictly between a man and a woman.Of course the Supreme Court should be able to overturn a state Constitution. If a state decided to bring back slavery, or outlaw all guns, or ban Fox News, the Supreme Court is our last defense.Supreme Court to hear case on church and state - CNNPolitics.com
The Supreme Court heard arguments this week on whether or not the State of Missouri's state constitution is unconstitutional because it bans the state from providing direct or indirect financial assistance to churches and religious institutions.
Do you think that the Supreme Court should be able to overturn a state's constitution because the SCOTUS determines that the state constitution is unconstitutional?
I think the Supreme Court should be able to do so.
What remains to see is whether or not the Supreme Court will decide that these kinds of State constitutionals are unconstitutional.
So all you have is bullshit and I'm expected to take YOUR word that it was an actual case before SCOTUS involved and a Scalia decision for a hook? Nothing new from you. Once a liar, always a fucking liar, Tex! You're still all fucking hat and no cattle!If you are referring to a specific case reviewed by SCOTUS, cite it! I won't be drawn into a hypothetical with a known dissembler and liar! You're still to fucking stupid to understand the full scope of Constitutional law, huh Tex!Judicial Review IS the SCOTUS check on the Executive and Legislative branches to balance the powers of the triad. The truth of the matter is you simply don't like that ability to check the overreach of the Congress or Executive all the time and would prefer to be selective based on the whim of the moment.
If you want to get rid of judicial review and wipe their precedents from the books, then you'd have to say good bye to all of your 2A gun law protections upheld by SCOTUS, too. So get rid of judicial review and your Amendment II rights at the same time, FOOL! In for a fucking penny, in for a bloody pound, shit for brains!
So who checks the court when they enable overreach by the other two branches? Under current precedent the federal government has the authority to say you can't have a vegetable garden for your own consumption and can fine you if you do. The court gave them that authority, not the Constitution.
I don't remember the case name, but it's not hypothetical. A farmer was fined for growing grains for his own use on his property because the feds wanted to support the price of grains by restricting it's growth. The court upheld the fines even though the grain never entered commerce. So using that precedent, if the government decides they need to support the prices of vegetables, they could fine you for growing your own. In fact that same principle was used against an individual growing marijuana for personal consumption even though the government was essentially supporting and protecting an illegal market. Scalia really stepped on his dick on that one.
In Wickard vs Filburn (1942), for example, the Court upheld a $117 penalty imposed on a Ohio farmer for growing wheat on 12 more acres than he was permitted to under the Agricultural Adjustment Act. The Court relied on Wickard in the 2005 case of Gonzales v Raich, upholding the power of Congress to authorized seizure of doctor-prescribed marijuana allowed under the laws of California and other states. The Court in Gonzales noted that local use of medical marijuana had a cumulative effect on the black market for marijuana.
The Federal Power to Regulate Commerce
Now feel free to fuck off and die liar.
This is your horseshit that you contrived in your post #66. A false premise...a lie you lying bastard! What you present as proof of what you asserted when goaded into is Wickard v. Filburn. Was that case about a fucking vegetable garden you ignorant FUCK, or about a violation of exceeding the acreage of wheat planted beyond the farmer's quota limit? You're the lying son-of-a-bitch, Tex, and are just projecting your own fucking defective behavior as shown in your sig line.Under current precedent the federal government has the authority to say you can't have a vegetable garden for your own consumption and can fine you if you do.
Supreme Court to hear case on church and state - CNNPolitics.com
The Supreme Court heard arguments this week on whether or not the State of Missouri's state constitution is unconstitutional because it bans the state from providing direct or indirect financial assistance to churches and religious institutions.
Do you think that the Supreme Court should be able to overturn a state's constitution because the SCOTUS determines that the state constitution is unconstitutional?
I think the Supreme Court should be able to do so.
What remains to see is whether or not the Supreme Court will decide that these kinds of State constitutionals are unconstitutional.
Why bother having them ?
The SCOTUS wondered off the reservation a long long time ago.
But to answer your questions: No, they should not be able to comment on a States Constitution unless it impacts the federal government.
The 1st Amendment says "Congress shall make no laws...."
It says nothing about the states and in fact states had state sponsored religion well into the 1820's. Nobody ever objected.
The 14th Amendment made it clear that the protections of the Bill of Rights extends to state laws also.
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
No, it didn't make it clear.....
It has been in dispute ever since the amendment was passed.
It was the concept of selective incorporation...farted out by the Roosevelt Court that pushes this idea.
The Fourteenth Amendment and the Incorporation Debate
The should not be able to overturn propositions voted on by the people of California that said marriage is strictly between a man and a woman.Of course the Supreme Court should be able to overturn a state Constitution. If a state decided to bring back slavery, or outlaw all guns, or ban Fox News, the Supreme Court is our last defense.Supreme Court to hear case on church and state - CNNPolitics.com
The Supreme Court heard arguments this week on whether or not the State of Missouri's state constitution is unconstitutional because it bans the state from providing direct or indirect financial assistance to churches and religious institutions.
Do you think that the Supreme Court should be able to overturn a state's constitution because the SCOTUS determines that the state constitution is unconstitutional?
I think the Supreme Court should be able to do so.
What remains to see is whether or not the Supreme Court will decide that these kinds of State constitutionals are unconstitutional.
How can you even ask this question? Mississippi's state constitution codified Slavery. That was the issue.I don't think there's any overturning of a constitution issue. Rather it seems to be about what constitutes a "religious activity." Of course the founders did nto want public money going to church buildings. But, sectarian nonprofits operating playgrounds can get the money. I'm aware of churches that get around this sectarian/non-sectarian non profit distinction by forming nominally independent separate entities to operate soup kitchens/food banks, and even an idependent but religiously affiliated school.Do you think that the Supreme Court should be able to overturn a state's constitution if the SCOTUS determines that the state constitution is unconstitutional?The Supreme Court does not go and pick cases to hear, they're brought before them and then they decided to hear the case or not. Constitutionals are walks by the way.
In the case of Missouri and several other states, the prohibition is hardwired into the State constitution.
Again- I am asking is if anyone has a problem with the Supreme Court overturning a provision in a State constitution by finding it unconstitutional?
It is a state's rights issue versus a bill of rights issue.
Moreover there's nothing unusual in the Missouri case. As your link states Missiouri's constitution like 40 others says the state cannot take public money and give it "directly or indirectly in aid of a church." And Justice Ginsburg noted that under the Constitution the state is forbidden from giving money for church buildings.
You're looking at this as states' rights, and that's not really the case. Churches form independent corporate bodies to get money for all kinds of crap: job training, substance abuse treatment, food programs, etc. What's happening here is that religious litigants are just trying to break down the barriers. If the issue is just the safety of the kids in the playground, you get one result. If the playground is part of the church's ministry to parishoners, you get another.
So all you have is bullshit and I'm expected to take YOUR word that it was an actual case before SCOTUS involved and a Scalia decision for a hook? Nothing new from you. Once a liar, always a fucking liar, Tex! You're still all fucking hat and no cattle!If you are referring to a specific case reviewed by SCOTUS, cite it! I won't be drawn into a hypothetical with a known dissembler and liar! You're still to fucking stupid to understand the full scope of Constitutional law, huh Tex!So who checks the court when they enable overreach by the other two branches? Under current precedent the federal government has the authority to say you can't have a vegetable garden for your own consumption and can fine you if you do. The court gave them that authority, not the Constitution.
I don't remember the case name, but it's not hypothetical. A farmer was fined for growing grains for his own use on his property because the feds wanted to support the price of grains by restricting it's growth. The court upheld the fines even though the grain never entered commerce. So using that precedent, if the government decides they need to support the prices of vegetables, they could fine you for growing your own. In fact that same principle was used against an individual growing marijuana for personal consumption even though the government was essentially supporting and protecting an illegal market. Scalia really stepped on his dick on that one.
In Wickard vs Filburn (1942), for example, the Court upheld a $117 penalty imposed on a Ohio farmer for growing wheat on 12 more acres than he was permitted to under the Agricultural Adjustment Act. The Court relied on Wickard in the 2005 case of Gonzales v Raich, upholding the power of Congress to authorized seizure of doctor-prescribed marijuana allowed under the laws of California and other states. The Court in Gonzales noted that local use of medical marijuana had a cumulative effect on the black market for marijuana.
The Federal Power to Regulate Commerce
Now feel free to fuck off and die liar.This is your horseshit that you contrived in your post #66. A false premise...a lie you lying bastard! What you present as proof of what you asserted when goaded into is Wickard v. Filburn. Was that case about a fucking vegetable garden you ignorant FUCK, or about a violation of exceeding the acreage of wheat planted beyond the farmer's quota limit? You're the lying son-of-a-bitch, Tex, and are just projecting your own fucking defective behavior as shown in your sig line.Under current precedent the federal government has the authority to say you can't have a vegetable garden for your own consumption and can fine you if you do.
You know I never agreed to your proposition to post DD 214's and when I didn't you accused me of reneging on an agreement I never made and you couldn't find in any of my posts. You're a despicable, no good fucking LIAR who'll say anything to look taller, you little handed shrunken shit hill suffering from little man syndrome! You've eaten the shit and are paying the price now, you fucking slime ball!
I first read the case years ago when I referenced it in a paper regarding the New Deal expansion of the Commerce Clause, shit for brains. Was it a vegetable garden or did the farmer overplant wheat acreage beyond his allotted limit? Don't try to cover your fucking lying nature with simpleton logic, or piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. You set up the initial premise with a bold face lie. Live with the truth for a change you piece of filth!So all you have is bullshit and I'm expected to take YOUR word that it was an actual case before SCOTUS involved and a Scalia decision for a hook? Nothing new from you. Once a liar, always a fucking liar, Tex! You're still all fucking hat and no cattle!If you are referring to a specific case reviewed by SCOTUS, cite it! I won't be drawn into a hypothetical with a known dissembler and liar! You're still to fucking stupid to understand the full scope of Constitutional law, huh Tex!
I don't remember the case name, but it's not hypothetical. A farmer was fined for growing grains for his own use on his property because the feds wanted to support the price of grains by restricting it's growth. The court upheld the fines even though the grain never entered commerce. So using that precedent, if the government decides they need to support the prices of vegetables, they could fine you for growing your own. In fact that same principle was used against an individual growing marijuana for personal consumption even though the government was essentially supporting and protecting an illegal market. Scalia really stepped on his dick on that one.
In Wickard vs Filburn (1942), for example, the Court upheld a $117 penalty imposed on a Ohio farmer for growing wheat on 12 more acres than he was permitted to under the Agricultural Adjustment Act. The Court relied on Wickard in the 2005 case of Gonzales v Raich, upholding the power of Congress to authorized seizure of doctor-prescribed marijuana allowed under the laws of California and other states. The Court in Gonzales noted that local use of medical marijuana had a cumulative effect on the black market for marijuana.
The Federal Power to Regulate Commerce
Now feel free to fuck off and die liar.This is your horseshit that you contrived in your post #66. A false premise...a lie you lying bastard! What you present as proof of what you asserted when goaded into is Wickard v. Filburn. Was that case about a fucking vegetable garden you ignorant FUCK, or about a violation of exceeding the acreage of wheat planted beyond the farmer's quota limit? You're the lying son-of-a-bitch, Tex, and are just projecting your own fucking defective behavior as shown in your sig line.Under current precedent the federal government has the authority to say you can't have a vegetable garden for your own consumption and can fine you if you do.
You know I never agreed to your proposition to post DD 214's and when I didn't you accused me of reneging on an agreement I never made and you couldn't find in any of my posts. You're a despicable, no good fucking LIAR who'll say anything to look taller, you little handed shrunken shit hill suffering from little man syndrome! You've eaten the shit and are paying the price now, you fucking slime ball!
Well you dishonorable piece of shit, the farmer grew the additional acreage for his personal use and never planned to put it in the market place, if you bothered to actually read the case you would know that. The case was also not about marijuana but they used the precedent to disallow the home growth of medical marijuana. They could easily use it to prohibit the home production of virtually anything. So take your little hissy fit and shove it up you ass, you've been proven wrong, AGAIN!!!!
