3 ms·
The same way that growing a plant on your own property for your own consumption became "commerce among the states".
by jeffdavis 12y ago
The same way that growing a plant on your own property for your own consumption became "commerce among the states".
- kenesom1 12y agoIndeed - prohibiting individual use because it might morph into interstate commerce is an illegal type of "pre-crime restraint" [1]. In which case everyone's rights are violated on the mere possibility that a victimless act the government objects to might be committed. [1] http://cornelllawreview.org/articles/pre-crime-restraints-the-explosion-of-targeted-noncustodial-prevention/ http://cornelllawreview.org/articles/pre-crime-restraints-th...
- baddox 12y agoWhich for reference was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich. Another fun one is when they ruled that growing wheat to feed your own chickens (all in one state) is interstate commerce: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wickard_v._Filburn http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wickard_v._Filburn
- jevinskie 12y agoAnd much of that precedent is from the New Deal era. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause#New_Deal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause#New_Deal Edit: In the case you posted, I think this excerpt from Justice Thomas' dissent sums it up nicely: If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article I powers – as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause – have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to "appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."