The federal system of government, which the United States or Americans employ, is composed of the national and state administrations at its two main levels. The need to defend American citizens' rights, which differed greatly at the local levels, drove the adoption of this form of government. The American judicial system is a clear example of the dual system of administration. State and federal courts each have varying authority to decide on particular kinds of cases. State statutes are to be interpreted by the state judiciary system. State governments draft and enact the majority of the laws that have an impact on Americans' daily existence. As such, the state courts decide on most disputes that influence day-to-day lives of Americans. The federal courts, on the other hand, defend most of the basic rights including freedom of speech. Despite the differences between the federal and state judicial systems, they both rely on the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land (United States Courts, 2017). This paper discusses the judicial system of the US and uses the case, Gonzales V. Raich, to understand the differences between the two court systems.
The Dual Court Judicial System
The differences between the federal and court systems are evident in the court structure and the type of cases. The article III of the Constitution gives the federal court system the judicial power of the US. It also gives the Congress the power to establish the Courts of Appeal, District Courts, Courts of Claim, and the Court of International Trade. The Court of Appeal provides the avenue for individuals dissatisfied with the outcome of District Courts, Courts of Claims and Court of International Trade. The US Supreme Court is the ultimate avenue for addressing federal cases. The cases handled by the federal court system include those questioning the constitutionality of a particular law, involving US laws and treaties, addressing federal officials such as ambassadors and ministers, disputes between states, and bankruptcy among others (United States Courts, 2017).
The organization of state courts varies from state to state. However, the general structure of the state court system is made up of the state Supreme Court, state Courts of Appeal, and Circuit Courts. These courts address approximately 90% of cases in the US. The cases involve the violation of state laws including robbery and drug-related crimes among others. The state courts address questions arising from state laws. The state judicial system may also handle cases which involve the state as a respondent. The state courts solve all family-related, traffic and juvenile disputes (United States Courts, 2017).
Gonzales V. Raich Case
Despite the distinct types of cases handled by the state and federal judicial systems, there have been cases where the two systems conflict. One of such instances is the case involving a resident of California called Raich and the Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales. Angel Raich and Diane Monson were under medicinal marijuana treatment program. The state of California legalizes the use of cannabis for verified medicinal purposes. After getting information about the usage of marijuana, federal agents denied the two residents the right to use medicinal marijuana by seizing and destroying Raich’s cannabis plants. This move was unexpected since Raich and Monson obtained approval from California state officials. Raich filed a case against the attorney general to seek declaratory relief to prevent the implementation of the Controlled Substances Acts. The decision of the court of appeals favored the plaintiff, stating that it was unconstitutional for the federal agents to implement the Control Substances Acts. Having been dissatisfied with the ruling of the court of appeals, Gonzales appealed to the US Supreme Court.
Laws Violated
The situation results from the clash between the federal law and state laws concerning drugs. The Congress enacted the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act that aimed at the prohibition of the use of illegal drugs in the US. Later, the Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). CSA classified illegal drugs and prohibited their sale, use, and possession in the country. In 1996, California passed the Compassionate Use Act which conflicted with the Controlled Substances Act. The Compassionate Use Act legalized the use of marijuana for verified medicinal use in California. Therefore, Raich and Monson were right to use marijuana for medical purposes. However, they violated the CSA for using and possessing marijuana. The federal does not permit any use of cannabis.
Appropriateness of Court Handling the Case
This conflict raises questions on which one between the federal and state courts should handle drug-related cases. The function of the state judicial system is to interpret the law formulated by state governments. The state government formulates laws that affect the day-to-day life of American citizens. Therefore, the Compassionate Use Act is within the jurisdiction of the US Constitution. If the Constitution gives the state governments the authority to create laws such as Compassionate Use Act, there the appropriate avenue for hearing drug-related cases is the state courts and not the district courts where Raich’s case was handled.
Outcome of the Case
The decision of the Ninth Circuit to reverse the ruling of the District Court to deny plaintiff the opportunity for a preliminary injunction was appropriate. The decision was right because Raich and Monson demonstrated that there is the likelihood that the Controlled Substances Act was unconstitutional. The unconstitutionality of CSA was on the basis that Congress’ Commerce Clause authority was not applicable to the non-commercial cultivation and use of marijuana for medical purposes. This power was vested in the state governments which have the authority to come up with laws that control the use and possession of cannabis for non-commercial purposes. Therefore, I believe that the Ninth Circuit was justified to reverse the decision by the District Court.
Justification of the Outcome
Basing on the Supreme Court ruling of the case Gonzales v Raich which raised the question of, whether the Congress had the power to prohibit the local cultivation and consumption of marijuana by the California law the court should not punish marijuana users. California has pioneered the regulation of marijuana and prohibited the possession and sale of marijuana. However, the state has issued a limited authorization of the drug for medicinal purposes. In the case of Raich, the respondent is a resident who suffered from severe medical conditions and sought to avail themselves of medical marijuana (Gonzales v Raich, 2005)
If the use of marijuana is therefore for medicinal purposes and can help in improving the health of a user, the respondent is not worth prosecution. Another respondent Monson is a marijuana cultivator and administers it in various forms such as smoking and use of a vaporizer (Gonzales v Raich, 2005). Raich is unable to cultivate the drug on her and therefore depends on Monson to provide her with the locally grown marijuana. The Drug Enforcement Authority (DEA) after carrying out a thorough investigation on Monson’s home concluded that her use of marijuana was entirely lawful but went ahead to seize and destroy all her cannabis plants (Gonzales v Raich, 2005).
The respondent reported the action to Attorney General in quest of liberation prohibiting them from possessing, manufacturing and obtaining marijuana for their medical use. The respondents claimed that in the doctor’s opinion, they had been advised to use medical marijuana since their condition was so severe and any other efforts were futile (Gonzales v Raich, 2005). They also claimed that enforcing a controlled substance act against them would cause a violation to the commerce clause. These are reasons enough as to why the court should not punish users of marijuana because it will also lead to a breach of another right that is entangled in drug substance laws.
The respondents further made strong urgings that they would suffer unembellished harm because marijuana has justified healing purposes. The Congress on the other end was concerned with the need to prevent drugs from diverting from legitimate to illicit (Gonzales v Raich, 2005). Secure controlling systems had been devised making it illegal to produce, possess or distribute drugs except in a manner accredited by the Controlled Substance Act that includes for medical purposes. Thus, any user of marijuana who conforms to the state and federal law should not be prosecuted by the court.
The laws also enacted by the Congress are also a bit conflicting because we see that the Commercial act cannot be treated in isolation (Gonzales v Raich, 2005). The interpretation of the laws can be confusing especially to the local citizen who does not understand the rules clear. Users of marijuana may also be victims of circumstance because of the complexity of the laws and policies put in place and the court to be fair should offer them a pardon and help them interpret the laws. The correct interpretation of these rules will enable the user to know the limitations of consuming marijuana.
There are several reasons as to why the law has prohibited marijuana. It leads to health problems, mainly when being used for recreational purposes. Marijuana causes both acute and chronic harms (Michael, 2014). The severe damages include anxiety and panic and increased accident if driving under the influence of marijuana. The chronic effects, on the other hand, are chronic bronchitis, cardiovascular diseases, respiratory cancers and psychotic disorders especially in heavy users (Michael, 2014). Modern research shows that use of marijuana is in constant change. The criminal sanctions of marijuana are more severe than the health effects.
Marijuana also leads to social problems. The use of marijuana leads to stigma, arrest, loss of incomes and career destruction (Michael, 2014). Users therefore are not able to fend for themselves and are likely to wallow in poverty. Also, those arrested in marijuana crime offenses are socially disadvantaged since they receive a criminal record that denies them a lot in the social setting (Michael, 2014). Consumption of marijuana has led to aggressiveness and increased crimes. This is with the rise of the drug cartel empire where crimes such as assassinations in the name of eliminating a threat or competition are common.
Marijuana affects adolescent brain development. Research shows that brain maturation in the prefrontal cortex proceeds in the mid-20s (Ammerman & Ryan, Adelman, 2015). The development process is at risk because of substance use disorders. Early consumption of marijuana may alter the developing brain thus leading to poor performance especially when it comes to tests of working memory, cognitive flexibility, and learning (Ammerman & Ryan, Adelman, 2015). These are adverse effects that will lead to school dropouts or education terminations. In other cases, users especially students, in this case, are often in unfavorable terms with the educators and are likely to be suspended from learning institutions usually.
The use of marijuana has other substantial side effects to a user. It includes increased heart rate and systolic blood pressure that may not necessarily be health effects. The different results are dry mouth, increased appetite and thirst, drowsiness and short-term memory loss, (Ammerman & Ryan, Adelman, 2015). Ischemic strokes in young people, panic attacks, hypothermia, and hallucinations are also some of the effects of marijuana use. All the dangers and consequences discussed are the sole reason as to why the law prohibits marijuana usage.
References
Gonzales v. Raich. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved October 22, 2017, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2004/03-1454
Ammerman, S., Ryan, S., & Adelman, W. P., (2015). The impact of marijuana policies on youth: clinical, research, and legal update. Pediatrics, 135(3), e769-e785.
Michael B., (2014). The prohibition of Marijuana. Manitoba Policy Perspectives | Volume 1.
United States Courts (2017), Comparing Federal & State Courts, Retrieved on October 22, 2017, from https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=13&ved=0ahUKEwjWk7qS_oPXAhWmL8AKHW-ADr0QFghdMAw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uscourts.gov%2Fabout-federal-courts%2Fcourt-role-and-structure%2Fcomparing-federal-state-courts&usg=AOvVaw34GMRi9CHT0kNs8oaw3Z4v
