[OneWingedShark]

There should be very, very few federal crimes, but this expansion is a direct result of the abuse found in Wickard and the other cases expanding the Commerce Clause and General Welfare.

What's sad/funny is that when you point this out in the very-real practical example of the War on Drugs and take a stance against it, you are often labeled as a druggie or endorsing drug-use — what they fail to realize is that if constitutional-restrictions only apply when you want them to, then the Constitution is useless and this means that it's more important to support the restrictions of the Constitution when they hinder your ideals than when they do not. (You wish to advance your ideals, and you don't wish to advance non-ideals… therefore you will be inclined to let things slide when the violations line up with your ideals.)

[tacticalogic]

The New Deal "substantial effects" doctrine of the Commerce Clause has become the federal governments "catch all" claim of authority. Using it to authorize the drug war was the easy way out.

The unintended consequences stand as proof that what's easy is seldom what's best.