[Ken H]

They have to keep everything contained within the state so that the Commerce Clause cannot be cited as the Constitutional authority for the feds to be involved.

Not so:

Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.

J. Scalia, Raich

____________________________________________________________

Drug warriors cheered at the time.

[Red Steel]

And Scalia BS’ing just like Wickard v. Filburn decision.

- - -

“The court in effect ruled that growing crops on one’s own property, to feed one’s own livestock, while neither “interstate,” nor “commerce,” is “Interstate Commerce.” As to whether this ruling “bears any fidelity to the original constitutional design,” University of Chicago Law School Professor Richard Epstein comments:

“ Wickard does not pass the laugh test.[6] ”

This “economic effects” theory of the regulation of interstate commerce resulted in every area of American life being subject to regulation under the clause of the U.S. Constitution empowering Congress to regulate interstate commerce. “

This ruling that purely local activity which is not commerce can be regulated by Congress under the “interstate commerce” clause meant that Congress’ power to regulate every aspect of American life was essentially without limit.

Nearly all of the regulation of modern American life is enacted under this principle and this expanded understanding of the “interstate commerce clause.” That is, had the Supreme Court maintained its prior rulings under the “Lochner Era,” most regulation in modern America would be struck down as unconstitutional. “

http://www.conservapedia.com/Wickard_v._Filburn

- - - - - - -

There is an out for Scalia and rest of SCOTUS is that firearms are not wheat- that is a right via the 2nd Amendment. The high court can now contort back and untwist to the correct opinion at least when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.

[butterdezillion]

What was the context for that quote? (It was a quote, wasn’t it?) Why was intrastate commerce considered necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective in that particular case?

[Clump]

I hear you about Scalia. He was of course in the 5-4 majorities in US v. Lopez (1995) and US v. Morrison (1999) when the SCOTUS struck down federal laws (gun free school zone act- Lopez and violence against women act- Morrison) for Congress exceeding their authority under the commerce clause.
The Raisch case was a good chance for the court to stay strong.
If I recall correctly, it was 6-3 with Thomas, Rehnquist, and O’Connor in the dissent.
Scalia wrote a concurring opinion and tried to distinguish the cases.
I have read it a couple of times and my only conclusion (sadly) is that he lost sight of his job because he supports the war on drugs.
Kennedy too.