[bamahead]

The same argument Newsweak makes here was used in the 2005 SCOTUS Medical Marijuana case. In that decision, the SCOTUS seemed to grant the FedGov license to regulate ANYTHING that MIGHT cross state lines as 'interstate commerce'...whether it actually crossed or not.

The only difference here, is that there's not a 'Constitutional Amendment' explicitly protecting your access to medicines. We'll see if this matters to the SCOUTS.



Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
View past Libertarian pings here | DONATE to FreeRepublic

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

2005 SCOTUS Medical Marijuana case. In that decision, the SCOTUS seemed to grant the FedGov license to regulate ANYTHING that MIGHT cross state lines as 'interstate commerce'...whether it actually crossed or not.

Wickard v. Filburn (1942) was far broader than that, allowing Congress to regulate anything that "affected" anything that might be involved in interstate commerce. That is the linchpin of all federal regulation and nanny-state tyranny.