"In fact, the general welfare clause covers drugs with no stretch at all. It is just the sort of thing that clause was intended to address."
Do you agree with the above statement on the GW Clause... yes or no?
2. Do you think the Wickard ruling is in keeping with the original understanding of the Commerce Clause... yes or no?
1) No, I don’t think the federal government has broad authority to take actions based on the “general welfare.” Its powers are well defined, and anything not specifically granted to the federal government is reserved by the states.
2) No, I don’t agree with Wickard. I don’t think it fits an original or even reasonable reading of the Commerce Clause.
None of this means I support legalized drugs. The states certainly have the authority to restrict pretty much whatever they restrict, including homosexual activity (SCOTUS usurpations notwithstanding).
Of course, we are well, well beyond all that now. Ending the drug war is far down on my list. Short of revolution and all the massive risks that entails, we aren’t going to change 80 years of socialism overnight. It’s going to take time. I’d like to see some push back toward the right. That’s a reasonable expectation.