[Ken H]

We will need to get a reliable fifth and sixth originalist vote on the Court.

AFAIK, Clarence Thomas is the only Commerce Clause originalist on the Court:

Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything, and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.

Justice Thomas, dissenting in Raich

___________________________________

Scalia sided with fedgov:

"...the authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws governing intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. 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."

Justice Scalia, concurring in Raich

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

Exactly. Both Liberals and most "conservatives" want to use the expansive commerce clause for their own purposes. I've pointed the same out that even
SCALIA IS A NEW DEALER
when the subject is regulation of marijuana and other drugs. So are most "FReepers". They don't have the guts to go through another Prohibition Amendment. But this back door approach doesn't work any better even though they enforce bad law even more tenaciously.

[TigersEye]

That is very disappointing to see a statement made by Scalia that makes no sense whatsoever. That’s nothing but gobbledygook. Spin on top of spin.

[publiusF27]

Scalia said his opinion was not different from Stevens' in the Raich case, just perhaps more "nuanced." Uh huh.

Here's how I see it. Stevens' opinion is one huge long ramble that basically says Wickard=Raich over and over in every possible legal way. In doing so, Stevens filled the opinion with the name Wickard, anathema to conservatives. Scalia wanted a Raich opinion that was not completely filled with Wickard, so he wrote one, and stuck his lone reference to Wickard down in a footnote.

His opinion was about the necessary and proper clause, a part of the Constitution, and not about private actors affecting commerce within their own state (or property). But how can regulation be "necessary and proper" without the aggregate substantial effects of those individuals? In other words, without Wickard? Nuanced my @$$. Scalia's opinion is derived from Wickard and falls apart without it, just like Stevens'. It just only says Wickard once. Very skillful writing.

Where is robertpaulsen when you need him to explain why all this is the only possible conservative thought?

[CRBDeuce]

yes...there are a plethora of laws and precedent cases that need be repealed/overturned....the 2010 Congress will be a good place to start repealing! as litmus test for election. So far I see 2 cases...this list needs to grow. The Commerce Clause needs claws.