There is a huge actual commerce in illicit drugs.
Gibbons v. Ogden was limited to actual commerce, and further, limited to commercial commerce, and specifically exempted personal commerce.
False. No quotes from the decision, naturally.
There is a huge actual commerce in illicit drugs.
You're not going to establish that the CSA isn't based on the New Deal Commerce Clause by relying on arguments from Wickard v. Filburn to make your case.
False. No quotes from the decision, naturally.
In the progress of things, this seems to have grown into a particular employment, and to have attracted the particular attention of government. Congress was no longer satisfied with comprehending vessels engaged specially in this business, within those provisions which were intended for vessels generally; and, on the 2d of March, 1819, passed 'an act regulating passenger ships and [22 U.S. 1, 218] vessels.' This wise and humane law provides for the safety and comfort of passengers, and for the communication of every thing concerning them which may interest the government, to the Department of State, but makes no provision concerning the entry of the vessel, or her conduct in the waters of the United States. This, we think, shows conclusively the sense of Congress, (if, indeed, any evidence to that point could be required,) that the pre-existing regulations comprehended passenger ships among others; and, in prescribing the same duties, the Legislature must have considered them as possessing the same rights.
Passengers and their personal affects and affairs are address in previous law. Ogden v Gibbons is concerned with the navigation of the ship, absent any concern for the personal effects and affairs of the passengers.