I believe this is called "begging the question" . What does the above have to do with the regulation of interstate commerce?? If the above is accepted as "proof" of interstate commerce, name something that is *not* interstate commerce.
This is exactly the point. Congress and the courts are using the same excuse to trample the 10th amendment on drugs and on every other issue they want to Unconstitutionally take from the states. Here's Justice Thomas commentary on this problem:
In his lone concurrence in United States v. Morrison (2000 U.S. LEXIS 3422 [May 15, 2000]), he wrote: I write separately only to express my view that the very notion of a "substantial effects" test under the Commerce Clause is inconsistent with the original understanding of Congress' powers and with this Court's early Commerce Clause cases. By continuing to apply this rootless and malleable standard, however circumscribed, the Court has encouraged the Federal Government to persist in its view that the Commerce Clause has virtually no limits. Until this Court replaces its existing Commerce Clause jurisprudence with a standard more consistent with the original understanding, we will continue to see Congress appropriating state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce.