That's right,and in a previous post, I gave a US Supreme Court ruling by Chief Justice Marshall that states the regulation of commerce was commerce with the State....which means it has NOTHING to do with commerce among the people.
Oh, that's right, you totally ignored it.
-----
So if you want to change those rulings just put on your Big Girls Boots and have it.
LOL! Why should I bother? Unconstitutional acts have NO FORCE in law.
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment, not merely from the date of the decision branding it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
6 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177, late 2d, Sec 256.
--------
Perhaps you should change your screen-name to count-your-sheep, as you, sir positively REEK of the ovine persuasion.
Go to court because some DEA agent found a bale of weed in your trunk and try that argument out on the judge. You don't need a lawyer, just explain that the fed law is unconstitutional and Marshall said so. Be sure and explain too that “Unconstitutional acts have NO FORCE in law.”
Of course I ignored it. But who knows? Maybe all the drug convictions under fed law will be overturned and the prisoners set free because Marshall said so.
Didn't the Raich decision uphold the CC in the case of pot in Cal.?