Look up the Supreme Court's Wickard v. Filburn decision and the Aggregation Principle. In Wickard (a case which involved some farmer who was growing wheat for personal consumption in violation of FDR's Agricultural Adjustment Act), the Court decided that the Constitution's Interstate Commerce Clause gave the federal government the authority to control activity that was neither commerce nor interstate. You heard that right--entirely intrastate, non-commercial activity could be controlled and even banned by the federal government, and--according to the New Deal Court--the authority for the feds to ban intrastate non-commercial activities can be found in the Constitution's Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution.
This was one of several important Court decisions during FDR's New Deal era that allowed for the massive growth of the federal government and the federal government's trumping of state sovereignty that conservatives supposedly now wish to roll back. Unfortunately, the Bush administration is currently defending the Wickard decision before the Supreme Court in the medical marijuana case, Raich v. Ashcroft. It's about the worst thing that Bush has done since he's been in office and a death blow to both federalism and conservatism, imho.
The more I read these threads, the more I wonder if Soros really cares about pot legalization. The important question here is not wheather Montana made the right decision, but wheather it was their decision to make. Centralized control is critical to the socialists and globalists advancing their agenda. Whatever control the States retain for themselves is off limits to Congress, and therefore to the UN. Only Congress can sign UN treaties and enforce their provisions on us, and they cannot do by treaty what is denied them by the Constitution. What seems to be happening is that there are a lot of "social conservatives" who are willing to lose that war in order to win this battle.
"Entirely intrastate"? Only if it "substantially affects" interstate commerce, Chicken Little, and only if that interstate commerce is regulated. BTW, the USSC allowed Congress to regulate intrastate shipping rates 20 years before FDR [The Shreveport Rate Cases (1914)].
First of all, the Commerce Clause says nothing about "interstate" or "intrastate" -- it says, "among the several states". So let's not get all huffy about some constitutional distinction that's only in your mind.
Second, just because Congress has the power to regulate commerce doesn't mean they have to or they should. I think your argument is more that Congress shouldn't be regulating marijuana at the federal level rather than they constitutionally aren't allowed ('cause they are).
Third, use common sense. Do you really believe that the Founding Fathers gave Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce only, thereby allowing the states to subvert and undermine Congress' regulatory efforts? What's the point? Why even give Congress the power if the states can do an "end around"?
"It is unnecessary to repeat what has frequently been said by this court with respect to the complete and paramount character of the power confided to Congress to regulate commerce among the several states. It is of the essence of this power that, where it exists, it dominates. Interstate trade was not left to be destroyed or impeded by the rivalries of local government. The purpose was to make impossible the recurrence of the evils which had overwhelmed the Confederation, and to provide the necessary basis of national unity by insuring 'uniformity of regulation against conflicting and discriminating state legislation.'
-- Justice Hughes, The Shreveport Rate Cases