Gonzales v. Raich

Gonzales v. Raich

Share
Gonzales v. RaichThe Background of Gonzales v. Raich (2005)
In 2002, the Federal Government – through the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) – entered the property of Angel Raich and repossessed the medicinal Marijuana of which she was legally in possession with regard to the statutes enacted by the State government of California; she had claimed that the Federal government acted in lieu of statutes implemented by the State of California. Raich, as well as the physician responsible for her care, insisted that her not only her recovery, but her wellbeing was contingent on her usage of Marijuana as medical treatment; she has suffered injuries resulting from a car accident that she had reported to cause her excruciating pain, which was quelled by Marijuana:
Proposition 215 passed by the State of California states that unless granted the expressed permission by applicable California governmental departments, the act of growing, possessing, using, selling, transporting, or buying Marijuana is a punishable and illegal act
With regard to medicinal marijuana, the prescription to specific patients residing in the State of California upon being granted expressed permission from an approved and accredited health professional is considered to be legal; yet, any activity that takes place involving medicinal marijuana existing outside of its intended usage is a punishable offense
The Case Profile of Gonzales v. Raich
The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Gonzales v. Raich’:
Date of the Trial: November 24th, 2004
Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field regulates ‘due process’, which is defined as the government’s obligation to respect, maintain, and uphold the legal rights of its citizens in the event of an arrest. Both the Federal and State government must preserve and protect an individual’s human rights and liberties; this includes fair, respectful, and ethical treatment devoid of undue violence and harm
Accused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by Alberto Gonzales, who was the Attorney General of the State of California against Angel Raich within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:
Angel Raich cited that the Federal Government of the United States had violated the statute of ‘Medical Necessity’, which permits the administration of legitimate medical treatments and cures to those in need; she stated that her denial to use medicinal marijuana was a violation of her 5th, 9th, and 10th Amendment rights
United States Reports Case Number: 545 U.S. 1
Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: June 6th, 2004
Legal Venue of Gonzales v. Raich: The Supreme Court of the United States
Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice William Rehnquist
Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Gonzales v. Raich case:
Alberto Gonzales; Plaintiff – Gonzales v. Raich
Angel McClary Raich; Defendant - Gonzales v. Raich
Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gonzales, who was acting as the District Attorney of the State of California, stating that because the Federal Government did not recognize the usage of Marijuana for medicinal purposes within the tenets of the Controlled Substances Act, the Federal Government was permitted to place discretionary bans and repossession of Marijuana deemed legal by the State of California – these bans and prohibition are permitted to exist regardless of their respective prescriptions and State mandate
Associated Legislation with regard to Gonzales v. Raich: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Gonzales v. Raich trial:
The 5th Amendment prevents the unlawful and unethical abuse of power undertaken by a governing body
The 9th Amendment serves as legislative protection with regard to corollary Amendments within the Bill of Rights; this Amendment disallows for the violation of civil liberties and unlawful expansion of governmental power
The 10th Amendment addresses the apportionment process latent within administrative responsibilities; this Amendment expressed that any or all administrative powers that have not been claimed by Federal or State governments become the responsibility of the general populace

Comments

comments

Share

Related Articles


Read previous post:
Quill Corp. v. North Dakota

Close