Yeah, I hear you. Let's see, what I meant by "who decides" -

Consider a hypotethcial scenario in which "someone" has to make a judgement about what's in the "general welfare".

As you say, this role "should" be left up the Courts, constitutionally that would be "aligned". Their job is to "interpret" the Constitution, and therefore they get to make "conceptual" decisions like this.

However, that's something different from actually enforcing the law on the ground.

This "dispensation" issue is a very good example. So, for instance, the Courts say, "yes, there are potentially dangerous side effects to medicine, so we're going to regulate it in the public interest".

Okay, well, the word "interest" there, is of primary importance. Because, let's say someone wanted to kill themselves, and decided to take an overdose of this particular medication.

The various "arms" of the government come into play for different reasons, and at different times, in this scenario.

So, for instance, the FDA is interested in the "quality" of the medication. Part of their job is to make sure that what people say they're selling, is actually what they're selling.

But, they also enter into the picture in terms of the "scheduling", in other words, the "Scientific Advisory Panels" internal to those organizatiosn (NIH, NIMH, they all work basically the same way) - are actuatlly making these decisions "in specific cases" - not the Courts.

So what's happened, is that the Courts have essentially "delegated" their authority in this area, to the federal government.

Is the light bulb starting to turn on yet?

Hello??? Congress "delegates" its oversight to the Executive Branch, the Courts "delegate" their interpretive powers to the Executive Branch....

You see, so the 'letter" of the law, may be perfectly acceptable and Constitutional in specific cases, but the concept behind it can be very un-Constitutional indeed.

And vice vers - so, for instance, you can have a law-maker introducing wording into a bill for a specific purpose (like the example I gave in the other thread, about Adm. McConnell's testimoney before House Homeland Security committee), but that bill then becomes law -

So what happens next, is that the Courts have to start interpreting the wording instead of the intent. Am I right?

So the key, in these legal cases, is to force the issue of "intent" upon the Courts, and that way they must make a value decision, they can't simply "interpret" existing law.

And the way you do that, is by framing the argument in terms of a Constitiutional "conclict". I mean, anyone and their brother can say a law is "wrong", but that wouldn't be quite enough to challenge precedent, right?

So instead, what you have to do is to show that the scope of the precedent is inadequate, and once again a "conflict scenario" is your best bet in that regard.

I talked to a medical lawyer briefly this morning, he told me all kinds of interesting stuff about how the FDA "approval" process works.

But note, that this process has never been applied to marijuana.

Hmm.... I smell a "conflict" - don't you?