You made the same "treason" remark in regard to Oregon vs Ashcroft.
The CSA was passed by both houses of Congress. It was signed by the President over 30 years ago. Every federal court ruling since then and prior to the Ninth's ruled the CSA constitutional. Every one. Even the dissenting judge in Raich v Ascroft said it was constitutional.
The 9th wasn't declaring the CSA unconstitutional in OvA; it was simply stating that the act didn't have the same scope of applicability that Ashcroft said it had. You interpreted differently, so you called it treasonous. If that's treasonous, then the English language simply hasn't provided an adjective sufficient to describe Miller.
No they didn't. I didn't say they did. They declared it unconstitutional in Raich v Ashcroft, the case to which I was referring.
"it was simply stating that the act didn't have the same scope of applicability that Ashcroft said it had. You interpreted differently, so you called it treasonous."
"But because the wording of the regulations do not actually mention assisted suicide, the DEA issued a regulatory "interpretation" informing doctors that prescribing federally regulated substances to assist suicides would not be a "legitimate medical purpose" under federal law. (An administrative interpretation establishes official policy for enforcing government regulations when the words of a pertinent regulation are unspecific or vague about the matter being interpreted.)
The 9th had no excuse to "interpet" it differently. The "interpretation" is crystal clear. They chose to interpret, and implement, it differently.
This is flat-out state nullification of federal law, a treasonous act.