[Ken H]

Seems to me that he’s saying that it would be too easy for a home grower in CA to ultimately end up in the hands of somebody outside of CA. Somebody outside of CA could grow the crop in CA and then take it to the state where they live and sell it there. Because growing it isn’t illegal in CA, taking it across state lines wouldn’t be illegal because that isn’t a commercial activity, and selling it in a single state wouldn’t be federally-regulated because it is intrastate and not interstate.... allowing people to grow marijuana in CA could allow the interstate production and sale of marijuana that technically didn’t break any laws because the growing was done in a different state than the selling.

That same reasoning applies to homemade machine guns (see the Stewart case above) and to guns made and sold in Kansas. It's a package deal.

But that doesn’t make sense to me either, because selling drugs is illegal regardless of where the drugs were produced. Right?

They use the commerce clause to justify forbidding the sale of it but it’s illegal to sell it even if state lines aren’t crossed. Right?

Not in CO and WA, or in states with medical marijuana. Let me ask this. Do you support the authority of CO and WA to run their marijuana policies without fedgov overruling them?

[butterdezillion]

I don’t know what Constitutional authority the feds would have, to regulate commerce that happens strictly within a state’s own borders.

To be truthful, like I said before, I’m having trouble figuring out what Constitutional authority Congress has for most of the laws they make. What is the basis for federal criminal law, for instance?

I think I need to read the Constitution from front to back again. What are Congress’ enumerated powers?