interesing analysis. I'm no lawyer, but I'd say the Supreme Court was wrong in the Wickard case. How can the Federal Government tell people what they can and can't grow on their OWN land?!?!
How can the Federal government tell citizens what they put in their OWN bodies??!!?!?!
That's teh direction I would approach this case from.
FWIU, the Supreme Court is very loath to reverse itself, but is less loath to issue rulings which change the effect of earlier readings but are nonetheless consistent with them.
For example, a compelling part of the argument in Filburn was that by growing his own wheat, the farmer was depriving a would-be seller of a buyer. Even if the farmer would not have personally bought wheat from out of state, his failure to buy the wheat would have shifted (by the amount of wheat in question) the supply/demand balance within his state and thus affected interstate commerce.
The argument doesn't work in the pot case, however, because there is no legal interstate market. Although it is certainly possible that growing pot within the state for immediate in-state consumption might cause people who might otherwise have done so to stop buying out-of-state pot, it would be hard to argue that their failure to buy out of state pot was somehow a bad thing.