Clarence Thomas' concurrance in US v. Morrison
"The majority opinion correctly applies our decision in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), and I join it in full. 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."
I see Thomas as wishing to resort halfway back to the original understanding - that there needs to be commerce and/or interstate movement, but once that standard has been met, there is a federal regularoy role.
Hence the feds would not be able to crack down on California medical marijuana, nor use the Commerce Clause as a rationale in situtations such as creating federal laws in the Violence Against Women Act, but would still have the powers to regulate actual commerce.
I think that statement by Justice Thomas proves that he is an advocate for legalizing drugs & turning our children into drug addicts. Anyone w/ a slight amount of common sense can see through those comments. < / sarc >