The President could, and should, say that the law is unconstitutionally broad. It would be a much more conservative reading of the constitution to say that Cong

The President could, and should, say that the law is unconstitutionally broad. It would be a much more conservative reading of the constitution to say that Congress does not have the power to arbitrarily outlaw substances within any and all states. This is why it required a constitutional amendment to outlaw alcohol. Given a traditional legal precedent and a strict-interpretation court the President has both the grounds to deem certain provisions of the law unconstitutional and the belief that that would be upheld by the court. Those are the only two tests he needs to pass to refuse to enforce a portion or all of the law. Responsibility to enforce the laws of congress: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_5:_Caring_for_the_faithful_execution_of_the_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_State... Right to refuse to enforce un-constitutional provisions: http://www.justice.gov/olc/nonexcut.htm http://www.justice.gov/olc/nonexcut.htm History of the commerce clause (Or "FDR, how we miss your court packing"): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause