Quote:
|
None of those things really matter in terms of commerce clause legal reasoning. Look at the Raich case. Locally cultivated and used cannabis that was never sold is subject to federal regulation because Congress might rationally conclude that allowing medical users under state supervision would allow cannabis to "leak" into the illegal market. As Kozinsky wrote in the (remanded) Stewart decision:
|
I guess one could argue whether that is "reasoning" or "rationalization" of a pre-existing, intransigent prejudice toward federalization.
If one extends the argument to its logical extreme, it gives Congress the authority to regulate ANYTHING because virtually anything can presumably find its way across state lines. It certainly assumes an extraordinarily expansive - nay - preposterous definition of what constitutes interstate commerce.