Quote Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
Originally Posted by Pindar
Actually it doesn't. As found in the 1995: United States v. Lopez and upheld in 2000: United States v. Morrison. a Judicial test was implemented. Regardless, if you are really up in arms about this, the case that should really get your ire is the 1971 Perez v. United States. This is where intrastate transactions formally fell under Commerce Clause applicability.


Are you referring to the guns in school zones?
The Perez case involved loan sharking.




I agree, BUT, the inrepretation of the commerce clause is too liberal. The interpretation assumes too much. This is where the problem is.
I don't understand. Are you saying the Congress shouldn't be able to pass legislation on drug legality? Or, Are you saying Congress can pass such laws, but shouldn't have any enforcement ability?

This case basically gives the Feds. the ability to enforce their own law. It places no onus on States. Further, should States decide to revise their own laws whereby they can control for legal vs. the illegal drug market there would not be a problem.