Remember me?Amendment X.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I’m sorry, but growing pot in your own home under medicinal license by the state isn’t interstate commerce. It just isn’t.

So what if it isn’t, that’s not the issue. The issue is, is the regulation of possession and homegrown cultivation of controlled substances a Necessary and Proper extension of the Commerce Clause. IF, there is to be a nationwide drug regulation (which necessarily is Interstate Commerce), as well as Pharma regulation, than the regulation of possession and cultivation could easily fall within the Necessary and Proper power. I think it does, apparently Scalia does as well, despite how poorly he is being treated.

But, what does the 10th Amendment Say?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So, my reading of the 10th amendment in the way you describe it is absolutely correct because that’s what the 10th amendment says, that’s states have even more powers than the feds. So I don’t see what your complaint with my reading is? Other than that you don’t like it, which is fair, but unconvincing.

As to the statement that growing pot “just isn’t just isn’t” interstate commerce, look, I’d agree with you that it’s not. But, let’s say, even though you may not, that the national regulation of pharmaceuticals and controlled substances is. IF, the regulation of possession of those controlled substances is Necessary and Proper, than bam easy decision, the regulation stands under the enumerated powers.

[...]

I’m sorry, but growing pot in your own home under medicinal license by the state isn’t interstate commerce. It just isn’t.

Conservatives talk a good game about states’ rights. We now know that many of them are bald-faced liars. Antonin Scalia chief among them, along with anyone else who endorses

They will bleat and preen for the camera, and trot forth the widow who can’t eat anything but Campbell’s Chicken Broth unless she gets stoney-high, but at the same time they will send forth missives declaring themselves foursquare for the War On Drugs, for they Care About Our Children’s Future!

My suggestion: Pick one and go with it. If tree is such a great, medicinal drug, absolutely beneficial to all exposed to it, then start the legislation, see it through. Prohibition was overturned in the 1930s, and that was done by constitutional amendment, a far more difficult process. If y’all can’t (or won’t) have the balls to go on record as to what you support in regards to marijuana, then STFU. The supremes have ruled.

Thatisall.

But I grant, the over/under line as to whether those would be too far outside the commerce clause has changed after Raich, and in the direction of more likely to be upheld. I still think however, it’s more likely than not that they would not be upheld.