The Controlled Substances Act is founded on interstate commerce clause. I do believe that for drugs produced within a state that the Act is npot legitimate.

Well this ruling officially says that any federal law that isn't in the constitution: Is now worth less than toilet paper, because it has no value anymore. It's either the constitution, or state laws, only.

the Constitution limits Federal authority to only those powers delegated to it
by the Constitution itself, or a "law of nations" (treaty)
absent an explicit power to regulate genital mutilation, or the involvement of interstate commerce, or an enabling treaty
the feds lack the power to pass the law in question

I still think the reasoning for interstate commerce is a bit strange.

Raich is a bit strange

Let's say you have two states side by side and both think it's okay to buy and sell pot. Now, some Joe or Jane brings their pot from one state to the next. Suddenly, the federal laws get involved?

Why is that?

The Constitution provides the Federal Government with ample basis to legislate. Just not on everything.

It's just going from one state to another, both of which decided that the sale of pot is fine.

@Undead Mockingbird , because interstate commerce clause of the constitution

Interstate Commerce Clause @Undead Mockingbird

yes

Yes, but it's still silly.

Right. Murder, Rape, Theft (as long as it's not tax evasion theft), mutilating children, all that stuff, can't be protected by federal law.

It's as if you have a line in the sand. Pot is fine on this side and on that side, but because I have stepped across that line, I am suddenly a criminal?

@JustTom , correct. Unless it can be linked to a treaty or the constitution.

Yep. Oregon could pass a law legalizing murder, and the federal government would be powerless.

correct @JustTom - those are the province of the states
unless there is some vector by which the feds find jurisdiction

Legalizing murder?

I am not sure about htat.

Sure. What federal power grants jurisdiction?

Too late @Undead Mockingbird It's already federally legal!

Maybe if the law is ineffective.

@Bookworm , depends. The victim has a federal right to due process which could be argued to be trampled upon.

Except the judiciary has no part in the proceedings?

Cat and paradigm both just agreed with me :D;;; We're all on the same page about what is and isn't legal at this point, due to this ruling. We're just on opposing sides about wether we think it's right or not.

Thus due process doesn't apply.

Maybe Hillary Clinton is considered her own state and that is why it's okay for her to suicide people.

Oh, no, don't get me wrong. This is absolutely terrible.

But it is the law of the land as it stands.

regarding de-criminalized murder... I'd venture that a 14th amendment challenge would succeed in defeating such a state law

In any case, even good laws generally have downsides. Because we acknowledge a right to individually bear arms we see far more gun killings than other western countries.

Because we have a right to free speech, we have hate speech

Because we reserve rights to the states, you have inconsistent laws across the country

Now now @DrYuriMom , we shouldn't discount them entirely. They have so many more TRUCKS OF PEACE than we do though!

I don't think there is such a thing as hate speech.

@paradigm Not true, the feds havnt been able to smite down the assisted suicide law in Oregan

Actually, the Supreme Court just ruled on that.

Not to mention acid attacks

That is how our nation was designed

Its completely ok