“Do you support the original intent of the Commerce Clause and Tenth Amendment, yes or no?”
Yes, but apparently there’s some misunderstanding of their intent. Commodities which are traded between, through, or across state borders, illegal or legal; moral or immoral; just or unjust; holy or unholy; can and should be regulated by the federal government. And who says it’s Colorado-grown pot and not weed coming in from Mexico anyway? Regulation and separation makes locally-grown weed impossible to do profitably. We’re already seeing it here. Projected tax revenues are much lower that projections. Why is that (that’s a rhetorical question)?
States can produce their own food, their own supplies, and anything else. The second those items cross their borders, illegally or not, the second it becomes the business of the feds. That’s what this lawsuit is all about. The feds must step in and regulate, ban, or force Colorado’s hand to end illegal distribution. Colorado did a horrible thing legalizing marijuana before it was able to eliminate 95% of the illegal distribution. It’s not fair, just, or correct for Colorado citizens. It’s not fair, just, or correct for Colorado weed farmers. It’s not fair, just, or correct for Kansas and Nebraska. They don’t want it in their states, and they’re abiding by the federal laws prohibiting it. I’m 100% FOR this as it’s clearly spelled out in the Constitution. Refer to USC: “general welfare of the United States”.
“What moves between states isn’t ‘international.’”
Weed coming from Mexico was, is, and always will be international. And at this point in time, 98% of the weed is still coming from Mexico. If we had the damned wall built between us and Mexico, it doesn’t matter anyway. The Commerce Clause enables the feds to regulate weed regardless. The framers knew this quite well... they were experts in commodities trading.
So you are indeed trashing the Constitution, specifically the original meaning of the Commerce Clause and the Tenth Amendment, just so you can have your drug war. Here's a real world example =>
Not long after the decision in Raich, the Court vacated a lower court decision in United States v. Stewart and remanded it to the court of appeals for reconsideration in light of Raich. In Stewart, the Ninth Circuit had held that Congress lacked the Commerce Clause power to criminalize the possession of homemade machine guns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
Eliminating 95% of the illegal distribution without legalization is a utopian pipe-dream; even the world's police states have drug problems. The way we eliminated the illegal distribution of alcohol was to end Prohibition.
Interesting. You are making two arguments which are non sequitur. Unfortunately, this is how the federal government continues on its path to Leviathan status.
By your first definition, which closely matches the intent of the commerce clause, if Mary goes to Colorado and purchases a hundred packages of smoked salmon and takes them back to Oklahoma for resale, then the Federal government has some standing. Primarily, their intended role was to ensure that a pound of smoked salmon weighed in Colorado, and unaltered, has the same weight in Oklahoma, and that tariffs would not be charged by Oklahoma for the "import" of the smoked salmon, thus stoking trade wars between the confederation of states.
By your second definition, if Mary buys a single smoked salmon in Colorado to eat at home with her prime rib, she is magically involved in interstate commerce. This is an obvious overreach of the federal government to anyone who is not a lawyer for the leviathan.
Unfortunately for every citizen of the US, the current situation is actually far worse than this. The supreme court has actually upheld this scenario:
Lucy and Jenny live in California. California has decriminalized medical use marijuana. Jenny is confined to a wheelchair, and cannot do much to help herself. Lucy grows pot in their back yard, specifically and uniquely for Jenny's use. The pot is grown in California, is never sold to anyone, and is consumed in California. In point of fact, the pot never leaves Lucy's private property. The DEA raids Lucy & Jenny and arrests them for violation of federal law. They get a conviction, followed by appeal ... ultimately to the supreme court.
The government argues that Lucy's production of pot on her own private property in a state that allows such use, has ...wait for it... the potential to affect interstate commerce of pot by other parties, in other states, even when they have no knowledge of Lucy and Jenny's activities.
And this is how a federal government gives itself unlimited power over anything in anyone's life. Your homemade apple pie may now be considered to potentially affect the interstate commerce of something...maybe saran wrap, under this interpretation, even if it never leaves your kitchen and is made from sugar, wheat and apples that you grew on your own property.
George Orwell was a piker.