[robertpaulsen]

"there is no way that pot smokers or personal growers could possibly be interfering with federal regulation of interstate commerce"

No way? Oh my, that's the current ruling and it is based on precedent.

"You might as well ask me, what if pot smokers interfered with the Senate's ability to advise and consent presidential appointments?"

In that case, you'd have a point. There is nothing to make one think that there is relevance, and it would be incumbent upon me to provide one.

"That is why I am waiting most wholeheartedly to hear your scenario for how a pot smoker could be such a threat to interstate trade"

What's the point if you don't believe Congress has any authority to legislate intrastate activity? If you admit that Congress has the authority in certain circumstances, then I'll provide you with your proof.

[fr_freak]

"there is no way that pot smokers or personal growers could possibly be interfering with federal regulation of interstate commerce"

No way? Oh my, that's the current ruling and it is based on precedent.

If you admit that Congress has the authority in certain circumstances, then I'll provide you with your proof.

We seem to have exactly opposite approaches here. I am coming from the position that the federal is engaging in some unconstitutional behavior, aided by bad SC decisions, and you appear to be coming from the position that because the federal government is doing it, it is by definition constitutional, especially if a group of SC justices said they could.