[Ken H]

Constitutional Authorization for Drug interdiction derives from the Mandate to defend the nation and not "Wickard". That Liberal judges say otherwise, and that it has become the goto precedent, is immaterial to me.

This gross violation of the Constitution was written, enacted and judicially confirmed as a regulation of interstate commerce. Even Scalia said so in Raich =>

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.

So why did Scalia strengthen Wickard, rather than calling it a defense issue? You ccertainly can't call him a liberal. You, like Scalia, are endorsing Wickard and trashing the Tenth by supporting fedgov meddling in intrastate marijuana commerce. Your denials notwithstanding.

[DiogenesLamp]

This gross violation of the Constitution was written, enacted and judicially confirmed as a regulation of interstate commerce. Even Scalia said so in Raich =>

Yes it *IS* a gross violation of the Constitution, but that does not prove the "war on drugs" to be illegitimate, it just proves that the current lawyer talking points which they claim justifies it is wrong. Again, authority for the drug war is perfectly reasonable under the defense clause. They just don't bother to assert this argument because "Wickard" makes it unnecessary for them to do so.

I will also point out that the "war on drugs" began with the "Pure food and drug act" of 1906, long before Wickard was ever contemplated.