4 ms·
There's a quote right in the Wikipedia article which talks about the practical reasoning and historical basis for the decision: > Even respondents acknowledge
by jcranberry 8y ago
There's a quote right in the Wikipedia article which talks about the practical reasoning and historical basis for the decision:
> Even respondents acknowledge the existence of an illicit market in marijuana; indeed, Raich has personally participated in that market, and Monson expresses a willingness to do so in the future. More concretely, one concern prompting inclusion of wheat grown for home consumption in the 1938 Act was that rising market prices could draw such wheat into the interstate market, resulting in lower market prices. Wickard, 317 U.S., at 128. The parallel concern making it appropriate to include marijuana grown for home consumption in the CSA is the likelihood that the high demand in the interstate market will draw such marijuana into that market. While the diversion of homegrown wheat tended to frustrate the federal interest in stabilizing prices by regulating the volume of commercial transactions in the interstate market, the diversion of homegrown marijuana tends to frustrate the federal interest in eliminating commercial transactions in the interstate market in their entirety. In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity.
- wallace_f 8y agoI am aware of Wickard v Filburn as it is regarded as a particularly, historically bad ruling, and obviously set precedent for this case. Did you actually read this? Have you read any parts of the constitution? Federal powers are constitutionally enumerated, and those which are not are reserved for the states. The premise of this discussion you've quoted here -- that the feds have the duty to centralize command and control authority over modest home production of plants for one's own consumption -- is obviously not the intent of the constitution, nor is it remotely American, nor remotely consistent with liberty.
- michaelt 8y agoIf reading to my children reduces aggregate demand for audiobooks, and therefore could impact interstate market prices, is reading to my children interstate commerce?
- SerLava 8y agoPretty much. The current legal definition seems to make the assumption that when the founders sat around writing the constitution, one of them looked up and asked for a nice punchy way to say "the complete domain of reality from the ground to the infinite reaches of the heavens above" and the reply was "oh, just say interstate commerce."