- Joined
- Dec 15, 2012
- Messages
- 19,729
- Reaction score
- 12,267
- Location
- Lawn Guyland
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
I don't know the entire history, but I believe it's been customary for state and local authorities to cooperate with the FBI, etc. whenever they could. I don't think the CSA in general is an abuse of the Commerce Clause, because obviously there is an interstate traffic in illicit drugs like heroin and cocaine. What made Raich tricky was that the marijuana involved had never moved between states. The opinion is complex, but it discusses the Commerce Clause issue you raise in detail. Wickard v. Filburn is an earlier Commerce Clause case that involved a loosely related question. The problem in both cases was that local acts inevitably have some interstate effect, however small. I disagree with the majority's decision in both Wickard and Raich.
I've read Wickard and don't agree with it for the reason you've stated - that any local act can be construed as having an interstate effect and give Congress control over the states that I don't think the founders intended and is, more to the point detrimental to the country as a whole.
I've only read a summary of Raich but have some free time to read tonight and may read the opinion.
Thank you as usual for an enlightening discussion.