How in the hell should I know? I’m not Daniel Webster. But I assure you that it is.
The "authority" that is used is that of Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce:
(Article I, Section 8, Clause 3)The problem is that the laws stem from the thoroughly incorrect reasoning of the Wickard decision (expanding the phrase
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
interstate commerceto include intrastate commerce) and the Raich decision (extending that intrastate commerce to non-commerce); that is the
authoritywhich theses laws are predicated upon.
Ironically, if we look at the actual commerce clause we see that this sort of interpretation would be an act of war if claimed against the foreign Nations
mentioned in that same clause, and enforcing it would be [or entail] waging war thereon — this is applicable because there is another place which mentions waging war on the States: Treason. — It is therefore not unreasonable to say that to uphold these laws
is to engage in Treasonous activities.