Discussion on the intent of the Commerce Clause

Dec 25, 2009 | Jim Robinson

[TigersEye]

Completely.

[publiusF27]

In the case of marijuana, the Court noted in Raich that given the fungible nature of the illicit drug that there was no way for Congress to know in advance whether any given manufacture of marijuana would enter interstate commerce, so that regulation of the manufacture was necessary for Congress to control the sale that such manufacture would precede.

I've never seen that point disproved.

I have not tried to disprove that point, only to show that it relies on the reasoning in Wickard, where aggregation and substantial effects were combined. What you are saying is that while a given individual might grow his own cannabis for personal medical use in compliance with the laws of his state, others similarly situated might sell it, and while one or two wouldn't affect anything, millions would. That's exactly the reasoning in Wickard, and even Scalia can't escape it.

[Mojave]

Wrong. (And predictably explanation free.)

Manufacture precedes sale. Regulation of manufacture facilitates the regulation of sales. The assertion that the power of Congress to regulate commerce does not include manufacture is unsustainable, per Madison.

[Mojave]

I have not tried to disprove that point, only to show that it relies on the reasoning in Wickard

It stands on its own. Untouched so far.