Read Ganzales vs. Raich. That appears to be one of the latest opinions, other than yours.
And no, I’m not interested in discussing guns here.
And no, I’m not interested in discussing guns here.
You ARE discussing guns when you discuss Raich:
_______________________________________________________________
Stewart appealed his conviction on the grounds that the law making it illegal to “transfer or possess a machinegun” was not a valid exercise of Congress’s power to regulate commerce, and violated his Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms.
In a previous opinion in the same case, the Ninth Circuit panel agreed with Stewart, holding that possession of a homemade machinegun was not inherently commercial in nature, and that the effect of Stewart’s possessing such guns on interstate commerce was attenuated.
The U.S. Supreme Court then decided the case of Gonzales v. Raich, 125 S. Ct. 2195 (2005) in which it held that Congress’ commerce power extended far enough to allow it to prohibit California residents from growing and using their own marijuana for medicinal purposes pursuant to doctor’s recommendation in compliance with California law.
Supreme Court
The Supreme Court then granted certiorari in Stewart, vacated the Ninth Circuit’s original decision, and remanded the case back for reconsideration in light of Raich.
http://www.metnews.com/articles/2006/stew070306.htm
LOL! Why not? Neither tariffs, tobacco, visas, beef or booze were the subject of the thread, but you had no trouble throwing THEM into the mix.
-----
And your response to the multiple examples of sourced material that asserts the commerce clause never had ANY legal authority to operate in the manner in which it is now used is (crickets).
-------
Typical. You believe the government can do what it does simply because it says it can.
Enjoy your serfdom.