[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

I'm still looking for the "right to smoke dope" provision in the Constitution.

That is a non-sequitur. I am simply saying that the commerce clause did not confer the right to the federal government to prohibit it (except maybe on federal property, like murder). That is not to say that states may not do so. (see 9th Amendment) It does not require that something be a personal "right" in order to say it is beyond the scope of the original understanding of a FEDERAL government in which states are sovereigns and not mere administrative districts.

[pawdoggie]

I am simply saying that the commerce clause did not confer the right to the federal government to prohibit it (except maybe on federal property, like murder).(Your opinion, not necessarily that of the Supreme Coutt) That is not to say that states may not do so. (see 9th Amendment) It does not require that something be a personal "right" in order to say it is beyond the scope of the original understanding of a FEDERAL government in which states are sovereigns and not mere administrative districts.

Ah, yes, the old "ultra-republican" argument, under which the Federal Government can neither forbid nor permit anything, including slavery and secession. I think the courts have, for better or worse, worked their way around "conundrum" a long time ago. It sounds like the argument made by those who claim that the Federal Income Tax is unconstitutional. Commercialized "legal" drugs which are moved and sold across state lines, do fall under the "commerce clause", as you well know.