PART 2 OF 3. In Gonzales v Raich (2005), SCOTUS tackled the tension between CA’s Compassionate Use Act & the US Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Plaintiffs grew marijuana for their own personal medical use. CA’s law allowed them to do so, but the CSA did not. Plaintiffs argued the feds couldn’t regulate marijuana unless it was an economic activity “associated with sale, exchange or barter,” which theirs was not. However, SCOTUS ruled for the feds, applying a broader definition of “economic.” But what’s worse is that SCOTUS held “Congress has the power to regulate PURELY LOCAL ACTIVITIES” when doing so is necessary to implement a comprehensive national regulatory program. ?NOWHERE in the Constitution does it allow Congress to enact general national regulatory programs! Congress was given specific powers. Regulating PURELY LOCAL COMMERCE is NOT one of them! (Art 1, Sec 8: The Congress shall have Power . . . To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.)

PART 1 OF 3. In Gonzales v Raich (2005), SCOTUS tackled the tension between CA’s Compassionate Use Act & the US Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Plaintiffs grew marijuana for their own personal medical use. CA’s law allowed them to do so, but the CSA did not. Plaintiffs argued for a common sense approach, where the feds couldn’t regulate marijuana unless it was an economic activity: “associated with sale, exchange or barter,” which theirs was not. However, SCOTUS ruled for the feds, defining “economic” as “the production, distribution, and consumption of commodities,” thus applying Congress’ Commerce Power to everything under that large umbrella. This allowed the feds under the CSA to ban Plaintiff’s personal growing & medical use of marijuana. The wording of this case allows Congress to regulate even the fruit you grow in your own backyard. However, it’s NOT what the Constitution allows! (Art 1, Sec 8: The Congress shall have Power . . . To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.)

Using the commerce clause as the constitutional basis, in 1994 Congress enacted the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which created a private cause of action that allowed victims of “gender-motivated violence” to sue in federal court. But in US v Morrison (2000), SCOTUS’s opinion was based on the fundamental premise that Congress lacks a general police power. SCOTUS clarified here that Congress may not regulate wholly INTRAstate non-economic activity regardless of its effects on interstate commerce. Further, SCOTUS held that “Gender-motivated crimes of violence are not, in any sense of the phrase, economic activity.” Thus, VAWA was held unconstitutional.