When I read that it made me think about what our current elected officials do.

First, Jefferson used the word “exclusively” when describing state legislative power to regulate intrastate commerce.

“For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes.” –Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson’s Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bank-tj.asp

And I agree with Jefferson that there is no reason for constitutionally-limited Congress to stick its big nose into intrastate commerce.

Next, regarding cases like Wickard, an examination of FDR-era case opinions indicates the following. FDR’s puppet justices scandalously ignored state sovereignty statutes like Article V and the 10th A. when they decided cases which tested Congress’s constitutional limits. This is evidenced by the following statement from Wickard where special-interest justices practically treated state sovereignty like a wive’s tale, IMO.

“In discussion and decision, the point of reference, instead of being what was “necessary and proper” to the exercise by Congress of its granted power, was often some concept of sovereignty thought to be implicit in the status of statehood.” –Justice Jackson(?), Wickard v. Filburn, 1942. http://supreme.justia.com/us/317/111/case.html

But the truth concerning state sovereignty is this. Contrary to today’s PC idea that USSC case decisions are final, when state lawmakers still understood state sovereignty, they would use their unique, Article V power to “overrule” unpopular USSC decisions. The 11th and 16th Amendments are examples of this, kind of.

The bottom line is that corrupt justices have scandalously ignored the following constitutionally-based rules which should apply in most cases where there’s a conflict between federal and state powers.

Rule #1: The states are always right
Rule #2: When the states are wrong, see rule #1

Finally, regarding medical cannabis, the USSC has already decided that Congress cannot practice medicine.

“Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously beyond the power of Congress.” –Linder v. United States, 1925. http://supreme.justia.com/us/268/5/case.html

The bottom line is this, IMO. Not only are cannibas growers evidently not familiar with state sovereignty, but they are unsurprisingly helping to elect constitutionally inept state lawmakers who are stupidly bowing down to the state-established federal government as if the federal government was an idol.

What a mess! :^(

Agreed. If you could get Holder to answer and to only answer "yes" or "no", you could walk him down the primrose path to his logical doom.

I've noticed politicians are not very good at giving yes or no answers. You can't even get them to agree on the meaning of the word 'is' (as someone else noted here).

I believe politics has become a process that selects for people who are unfailingly ambitious and narcissistic. A normal, mentally healthy, well-adjusted person would not be interested in running for office and dealing with the B.S. As far as I can tell, Ron Paul is an exception but he is as rare as hen's teeth (whatever that means!) : )

Yes, Raich was more bad news, as usual, from the USSC. Scalia made a run at holding back the commerce clause through the necessary and proper clause but, frankly, that logic is just as weak as Wickard's. Once you agree that Congress can regulate anything that has an impact on commerce, you're toast. You might as well give up and just say Congress can regulate anything it wants. That's how Pelosi, et al see it today.

As 'unknown' (above) says, it doesn't even slow them down that this analysis completely wipes out vast parts of the Constitution such as the 10th amendment. It's result-driven analysis.

Also, the fealty to precedent under the specious concept of stare decisis makes for such asinine opinions as Raich where Wickard is elevated to the status of binding law even though it was wrongly decided. Opinions such as Dred Scott and Wickard are clearly wrong and brave people need to just stand up, say they're wrong and overrule their holdings.

It's amazing how, everywhere you turn, there's yet another string of bad logic supporting this system that has moved SO FAR from its original design!