...the authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws governing intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.
Justice Scalia, concurring in Raich
______________________________________
As Justice Thomas put it:
Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything; and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.
J. Thomas, dissenting in Raich
I wonder why Justice Thomas gets’ it but Justice Scalia doesn’t. Scalia is a smart guy but Thomas’ logic is bullet proof. What’s up with this.
It’s a very potent contrast when you quote the few passages free of the blight of stare decisis. As a PHILOSOPHICAL discussion of the kind that greatly needed in that court, it is clear that only ONE Justice is capable. For even the superb laser-like reasoning of the acclaimed Scalia is shown to be inchoate meaningless drivel in that example.
The utter deficiency of true great and bold men (or women) in the courts, in Congress, in the higher ranks of the Military and in most large establishments public and private, is best exemplified by the tolerance of having a usurper in the office of President, and by the horrible breach of duty by the Chief Justice, the Vice President standing as President of the Senate, the whole of the Congress, the whole of Electoral College, the Secretaries of State in all states and territories, and the courts before whom challenges were rejected unheard, in allowing that fraud and traitor Obama to be sworn in.
Great question. From what I've been able to gather from other threads on FR re Scalia's nonsensical ruling is that he's hard core anti-drug. So much so that he must believe his personal convictions against dope overrides his duty to protect the tenets of our Constitution. Doesn't justify his ruling but it does offer some explanation -- FWIW.
IMHO, this particular ruling has the potential to reach into EVERY corner of feral government overreach. Whether it actually will or not is another question, no? To be sure it will probably yield a mixed blessing but it's the price we will have to pay if we are to abide by the original intent of our Founders. Some states will be allowed to wallow in filth as long as they are able to finance their misguided and self indulgent ways. I would truly like to see the results of THAT experiment.