[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Sorry but that ex post facto. That case was heard long after the 18th and the 21st amendments were passed.

It is given that the SC now finds ever new and interesting ways to expand their powers well beyond the boundaries that former Justices would have considered Constitutional.

Get me a case from that era or prior that supports your stance.

[robertpaulsen]

"Sorry but that ex post facto. That case was heard long after the 18th and the 21st amendments were passed."

First of all, I said the regulation of drugs was within Congress' constitutional power. You asked for "evidence to support my position" and I gave it to you.

WTF does that have to do with Prohibition?

Second, if you wanted me to cite pre-Prohibition court cases, or pre-FDR cases, or 19th century cases, you should have said so. I'm not going to play your little back-and-forth game. Next time be more specific.