Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Mojave
In the case of marijuana, the Court noted in Raich that given the fungible nature of the illicit drug that there was no way for Congress to know in advance whether any given manufacture of marijuana would enter interstate commerce, so that regulation of the manufacture was necessary for Congress to control the sale that such manufacture would precede.

I've never seen that point disproved.


I have not tried to disprove that point, only to show that it relies on the reasoning in Wickard, where aggregation and substantial effects were combined. What you are saying is that while a given individual might grow his own cannabis for personal medical use in compliance with the laws of his state, others similarly situated might sell it, and while one or two wouldn't affect anything, millions would. That's exactly the reasoning in Wickard, and even Scalia can't escape it.
262 posted on 01/05/2010 6:33:47 AM PST by publiusF27
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies ]


To: publiusF27
I have not tried to disprove that point, only to show that it relies on the reasoning in Wickard

It stands on its own. Untouched so far.

264 posted on 01/05/2010 7:57:42 AM PST by Mojave (Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson