More 'Commerce Clause' insanity, apparently.
From Scalia's comments:
"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."
The law needs to be changed.
But how can "banning" commerce be "regulating" commerce? Heck, Amendment XVIII(18) was considered necessary to "prohibit the manufacture, sale or transportation of intoxicating liquors."
Apparently this present Court feels this amendment(18) was unnecessary and that Amendment XXI (21), which repealed XVIII, was also unnecessary.
I'm waiting to hear that "saving money" is a violation of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. Not spending my money has one tremendous effect on both intrastate and interstate commerce.
I love Scalia, but that is a very broad interpretation of "interstate commerce." Taken literally, that allows the Federal government to do just about anything it wants. I can see a Federal role in prohibiting drug importation under the Constitution, or even in carrying it across state lines, but this broad interpretation is dangerous. For example, people living in Maryland attend a church in Virginia (for historical reasons.) Near the church is a supermarket that has notably lower prices on meat and produce, so on Sunday afternoons, they buy there.
Now, they take those groceries home to Maryland. Does that mean the Federal government can interfere in their dealings with this supermarket? After all, their purchases there affect supermarket chains that have stores in both states and the stores near them. That sounds like it falls under Justice Scalia's interpretation.
This is a states-rights issue.