sorry, I meant to say I would not approach it from the Filburn angle. (although I agree with your analysis)
I would approach it from the angle that the United States was the first country to take away power from the King (divine right of king = the king has his power from god by law). The US eliminated the middle man (the king) and gave each person the divine right of kings power for his own property. Thus - every man a king. Remarkable.
William Pitt said in a speech to the British Parliment (explaining this new American idea):
"The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter, the rain may enter -- but the King of England cannot enter; all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!"
If every man is a king on his own property (as enshrined by the Constitution) then it follows that the man may grow what he will and injest what he will with no one to answer to but whom he recieves his 'divine right from' - ostensibly God.
Now, I don't know how to frame that legally, but thats what I meant. :)
The federal government will cite Filburn. Anyone supporting California must therefore argue that (1) Filburn is wrong, or (2) Filburn does not apply. One may make other arguments as well, but if Filburn can be used to bind this case it will.