"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
Was Filburn an interstate carrier?
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"?
Paulsen, do you really believe that the Founding Fathers gave our government the power to defend us against infringements of our RKBA's only to allow the states to subvert and undermine those efforts?
What's the point?
Why even give Congress the power if the states like CA can do an "end around" and ban socalled assault weapons?
Have you ever given any thought to your constant contradictions of logic, paulsen?
"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the states, and with the Indian tribes." To erect a bank, and to regulate commerce, are very different acts. He who erects a bank creates a subject of commerce in its bills; so does he who makes a bushel of wheat, or digs a dollar out of the mines; yet neither of these persons regulates commerce thereby. To make a thing which may be bought and sold, is not to prescribe regulations for buying and selling. Besides, if this were an exercise of the power of regulating commerce, it would be void, as extending as much to the internal commerce of every state, as it is external. For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a state … which remains exclusively with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another state, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes."
-Thomas Jefferson, on establishing a national bank.