[Lucky Dog]

Care to give us your opinion on 301?

…the Court simply made explicit what the earlier cases had implied: "where we find that the legislators, in light of the facts and testimony before them, have a rational basis for finding a chosen regulatory scheme necessary to the protection of commerce, our investigation is at an end."

My opinion coincides with the quoted portion of the posted text in 301.

The only apparent quarrel someone could voice is as to what constitutes “a rational basis for finding a chosen regulatory scheme necessary to the protection of commerce.” To so quarrel is merely to substitute the objector’s opinion for that of the courts. “We the people,” have delegated the coercive power to adjudicate disputes to the courts. These duly and lawfully appointed adjudicators, in turn, have deferred to Congress. Consequently, attempting to substitute non-judicial opinions for those of those duly appointed and those duly elected is feckless. If one wishes to directly change the situation, then election of alternate representation in Congress appears to be the correct solution.

[tacticalogic]

My opinion coincides with the quoted portion of the posted text in 301.

That's Souter's dissenting opinion in Lopez.

[tpaine]

Thus there is no apparent quarrel anyone should voice as to what constitutes a rational basis for finding a chosen 'drug war' regulatory scheme necessary to the protection of individual liberties.
To so quarrel is merely to substitute the objector's opinion for that of the courts, who must be obeyed.
"We the people," have delegated the coercive power to adjudicate disputes to the courts. These duly and lawfully appointed adjudicators, in turn, have deferred to Congress, who again, must be obeyed for the good of society .

Consequently, attempting to substitute non-judicial opinions for those of those duly appointed and those duly elected is a feckless challenge to good order.
If one wishes to directly change the situation, then election of alternate representation in Congress appears to be the correct solution.
Any attempt to suggest that constitutional amendments are necessary to prohibit drugs are simply bad form, and need not be tolerated by the powers that be.