But Congress can't enact a prohibition on the sale of marijuana because marijuana is not "legitimate commerce."
It is clear that I never said that or anything like it. A "prohibition on the sale of marijuana" is a law prohibiting commerce in marijuana. Even a small child could understand that extremely simple concept. That being established; (the concept not your idiocy, that's so clear it needs no extrapolation) any commerce in marijuana is obviously illegitimate, ie not legally sanctioned, in nature.
When you go back and complete your grade school education you might be fit to argue the dictionary definition of a few words. Legal concepts are much further down the road for you. Until then this is nothing more than an exercise in 'throwing the monkey's crap back at it' for me. It's kind of fun watching you eat it.
You’re nasty.
2. That being established; (the concept not your idiocy, that's so clear it needs no extrapolation) any commerce in marijuana is obviously illegitimate, ie not legally sanctioned, in nature.
So being "obviously illegimate" because is "not legally sanctioned", it isn't subject to regulation and therefore can't be prohibited because that would "conflate the black market with legitimate commerce." And since marijuana is prohibited it is not "legitimate commerce" and therefore Congress can't prohibit it. But when confronted with the fact that the 1st Congress prohibited sales of whiskey to the Indians, you deemed those whiskey sales to Indians as being regulations on "legitimate commerce" even though such sales were prohibited and were "not legally sanctioned."
Nothing like building your argument entirely on direct contractions, logical inconsistency and flexible terminology invented out thin air.