[BikerNYC]

I disagree with that assessment. It is more likely that congressional leaders understood that they had no authority to ban the sales of liquor within a state. And while they might have been able to ban the interstate transportation of alcohol, they could not have banned the sale of booze made within a state.

In this case, the feds can regulate the interstate transportation of drugs, but they want to do more than that. They want to permit the interstate transportation, but regulate the use of a perfectly legal product within a state. They also seek to ban the use of drugs for particular purposes even if no interstate transportation is involved.

This case presents another perfect example of how the feds want to interfere with the affairs of a state by ignoring the plain meaning of the interstate commerce clause by extending it to all sorts of things that have nothing to do with interstate commerce.

[robertpaulsen]

"It is more likely that congressional leaders understood that they had no authority to ban the sales of liquor within a state."

Do you have anything to back this up?

The reason I ask is that the 21st amendment not only repealed the 18th (Section 1), but it also removed the power from the federal government and placed it exclusively with the states (Section 2).

Now, if the federal government did not have the power, why the need for Section 2? Just simply repeal the 18th, and that's it.