[Ken H]

I'm not so sure he was wrong on that point, though I don't know the details of the case in question.

______________________________________

It was a full-throated embrace of Wickard. Do you think that is in keeping with the original understanding of the Commerce Clause?

As to the example you gave, a similar case was addressed by the Marshall Court in Gibbons v Ogden (1824).¹

In his Raich dissent, Clarence Thomas explained why Gibbons is consistent with originalism, and why Wickard is not.²

______________________________________

¹http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_3_commerces16.html

²http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD1.html

[Ken H]

Correction. Justice Thomas discusses the Gibbons v Ogden case in United States v Lopez, not Raich. Here is the URL to his opinion in Lopez:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.ZC1.html