[Ken H]

The question at hand was constitutional authority and drugs. Gonzales v Raich dealt with that question.

So you support the expansive Commerce Clause? You must, since you cited it for your argument. That's known as spitting on the Tenth Amendment. Read and learn from Justice Thomas:

If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything–and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.

J. Thomas, dissenting in Raich

[MamaTexan]

That's known as spitting on the Tenth Amendment.

But, but, but.... it's okay because drugs are baaaaaaaad.

LOL!

-----

Some folks just won't understand that by giving the federal government authority over that which is not expressed, it also gives the federal government authority over that which IS.

And THEY'RE usually the ones who squeal the loudest when their bull gets gored, never realizing they did it to themselves.

[count-your-change]

The question at hand was constitutional authority for the feds to regulate drugs and I cited Raich as a example of the court addressing the question.

I happen to agree with Thomas comment but that wasn't the question or the point I was making.

I'm sure you'll draw whatever conclusions you wish despite the facts.