Replies

Thomas’ rationale affirms the Commerce clause in general, while disputing only a specific and small exception as described by Thomas.

The exception is "local cultivation and consumption of marijuana;" nothing in the opinion supports your claim that it's "small."

Incorrect on all points...and more repeating of wrong stuff.

My identification of the exception is clearly correct:
"local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not “Commerce … among the several States.” U.S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 3. By holding that Congress may regulate activity that is neither interstate nor commerce under the Interstate Commerce Clause, the Court abandons any attempt to enforce the Constitution’s limits on federal power." - GONZALES V. RAICH (03-1454) 545 U.S. 1 (2005), dissenting

And since nonexistence can't by its nature be positively proved, the burden of proof is on you to show that Thomas' opinion identifies the exception as small. To get you started, here's the link - http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD1.html.

Ron Paul must be heard.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EQSOwgWG1c&feature=related

Why must he be heard - does he present an argument in support of your claims regarding the constitutionality of current federal drug laws?