I never said otherwise
So we agree -- when the U.S. Supreme Court rules that something is constitutional, it's constitutional.
That doesn't follow from what we do agree on - and the dictionary and FR usage contradict it.
you're proposing the harassment of citizens who you know have broken no law.
Baloney. In exactly what words have I proposed that?
by insuring 'uniformity of regulation against conflicting and discriminating state legislation.'
State laws legalizing marijuana are not "conflicting and discriminating" with federal laws?
Of course they're not "discriminating with" federal laws - what would that even mean? Obviously "conflicting and discriminating state legislation" means conflicting with and discriminating against other states and their laws.
In sharp contrast, the Shreveport Rate Cases ruling asserts the authority of Congress only with specific reference to shipping rates
It wasn't that narrow.
Then you can quote it to the contrary.
As a matter of fact, the Wickard court used it to support their decision.
That a later court broadens an earlier narrow ruling makes the earlier ruling itself no less narrow.
as no substantive attempt had been made before or since to control interstate traffic without instrastate control.
Well, as we have seen, you attribute any failure to a lack of a "substantive attempt". As I pointed out with alcohol, intrastate control was tried
As I showed, it was not in any substantive sense "tried." Let me refresh your distressingly spotty memory: 'According to President Nixon's National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, "The lack of federal enforcement rendered the statute [the Webb-Kenyon Act] virtually meaningless."'
intrastate control is failing with marijuana -- the subject of the above article.
That intrastate control is having any less success than interstate control is utterly unproven.
Sticking to your bootlicking assumption that it's federal regulation or a free-for-all, I see.
I prefer to call it a pragmatic approach. But if you have a better solution, I'm all ears. Who knows? I just might end up agreeing with you.
State regulation, and airlines' voluntary cooperation, spring to the mind of any true conservative.
Gobbledygook. If the U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter, their ruling stands.
"Of course they're not "discriminating with" federal laws - what would that even mean?"
I'll rephrase. State laws legalizing marijuana are not conflicting with and discriminating against federal laws? The goal of "uniformity of regulation" cannot be met if states are allowed to set the rules.
" Then you can quote it to the contrary."
If the Shreveport ruling only applied to shipping rates, the Wickard court couldn't have applied it to wheat.
"That intrastate control is having any less success than interstate control is utterly unproven."
Nebraska and Oklahoma would disagree.
"State regulation, and airlines' voluntary cooperation, spring to the mind of any true conservative."
Sure. Each of the 50 states could have their own aircraft control system for intrastate flights, in addition to the FAA controlling interstate flights. Takeoffs and landings would be a challenge. You'd prefer that?
What's next? The FDA?