4 ms·

"Interpreting" the Interstate Commerce Clause to grant the Federal Government the power to regulate controlled substances? At this point, there is no power con

"Interpreting" the Interstate Commerce Clause to grant the Federal Government the power to regulate controlled substances? At this point, there is no power conceivable that the Federal government could not claim under the umbrella of "it might affect commerce somewhere". Most of the powers the Federal government has seized from the states have been rationalized under the ICC. Like making it illegal for a farmer to grow wheat on his own farm to feed his own animals. [1] [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

guntars 5y ago
That's a fun one: > The Court decided that Filburn's wheat-growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for animal feed on the open market, which is traded nationally, is thus interstate, and is therefore within the scope of the Commerce Clause. Although Filburn's relatively small amount of production of more wheat than he was allotted would not affect interstate commerce itself, the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers like Filburn would become substantial. Therefore the Court decided that the federal government could regulate Filburn's production.