No it doesn't, and that you assert that it does demonstrates that you really haven't been listening to what I have been attempting to tell you. I'm wondering if I should just stop trying.
You can't weasel out of your support for Wickard, nor your trashing of the Tenth Amendment by claiming the 'defense clause'.
Just because you say something doesn't make it true. There is no "weasel". I am exactly right. Constitutional Authorization for Drug interdiction derives from the Mandate to defend the nation and not "Wickard". That Liberal judges say otherwise, and that it has become the goto precedent, is immaterial to me.
This gross violation of the Constitution was written, enacted and judicially confirmed as a regulation of interstate commerce. Even Scalia said so in Raich =>
Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.
So why did Scalia strengthen Wickard, rather than calling it a defense issue? You ccertainly can't call him a liberal. You, like Scalia, are endorsing Wickard and trashing the Tenth by supporting fedgov meddling in intrastate marijuana commerce. Your denials notwithstanding.