TIMELY CIVICS LESSON

The U.S. Supreme Court Monday offered a timely and unanimous object
lesson in what it means to interpret the law - the Framers' intention
for the court - versus making law - what many liberals have come to
insist should be our courts' ``modern'' role.

Ruling 8-0 (with Justice Stephen Breyer recusing himself; the federal
judge who heard the original case is his brother), the high court
said a federal law classifying marijuana as illegal makes no
exceptions for ill patients. It rejected the 9th U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals' contention that ``medical necessity'' is a legal defense.

The ``Controlled Substances Act ... reflects a determination that
marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception,'' save for
government-approved research projects, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote
for the majority.

This is not to say that marijuana has no ``medicinal'' purposes. The
anecdotal and medical evidence is quite compelling that it does -
from easing the nausea associated with some cancer treatments and
AIDS to reducing the crippling effects of multiple sclerosis.

So, how could the Supreme Court rule as it did? Again, because the
federal statute makes absolutely no provision for medicinal marijuana
use. Should the several states believe this to be ``wrong,'' as
several states have contended, the proper forum for redress is not
through the courts but through Congress, an avenue several states
already have been efforting.

The judicial branch isn't supposed to make law. The legislative
branch is. This week's court ruling is an elementary civics lesson
that teachers everywhere - elementary, secondary and even higher -
should find worthy of reintroduction to their students.