The constitution is remarkably vague about all manner of things. So, the argument that the "expansion of the government beyond what the Constitution allows" is really difficult to support on a textualist basis. What exactly did you have in mind?
> to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.
Being interpreted thusly…
> The government argued that if a single exception were made to the Controlled Substances Act, it would become unenforceable in practice. The government also contended that consuming one's locally grown marijuana for medical purposes affects the interstate market of marijuana and the federal government may thus regulate and prohibit such consumption.
> That argument stems from the landmark New Deal case Wickard v. Filburn, which held that the government may regulate personal cultivation and consumption of crops because of the aggregate effect of individual consumption on the government's legitimate statutory framework governing the interstate wheat market.
Filburn grew his own crops on his own land to feed his own animals. The government fined him under interstate commerce laws for growing too much wheat.
>The Court decided that Filburn's wheat-growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for animal feed on the open market, which is traded nationally, is thus interstate, and is therefore within the scope of the Commerce Clause.
Thomas’ dissent really brings home the point on textualist/originalist grounds.
> If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined", while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite."
It’s worth adding that in addition to Justice Thomas, O’Conner and Rheinquist dissented on Raich and just a month ago Thomas noted how untenable the majority’s decision has become with regards to current law and practice around cannabis. The court was motivated to find a way to justify the federal governments blanket prohibition and produced bad law, and if the same case had come before them in 2021 it could very well have been decided differently, arguably under equal treatment provisions.
> Whatever the merits of Raich when it was decided, federal policies of the past 16 years have greatly undermined its reasoning. Once comprehensive, the Federal Government's current approach is a half-in, half-out regime that simultaneously tolerates and forbids local use of marijuana. This contradictory and unstable state of affairs strains basic principles of federalism and conceals traps for the unwary.
> …
> Yet, as petitioners recently discovered, legality under state law and the absence of federal criminal enforcement do not ensure equal treatment.
> …
> I could go on. Suffice it to say, the Federal Government's current approach to marijuana bears little resemblance to the watertight nationwide prohibition that a closely divided Court found necessary to justify the Government's blanket prohibition in Raich. If the Government is now content to allow States to act "as laboratories" "'and try novel social and economic experiments,'" Raich, 545 U. S., at 42 (O'Connor, J., dissenting), then it might no longer have authority to intrude on "[t]he States' core police powers . . . to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens." Ibid. A prohibition on intrastate use or cultivation of marijuana may no longer be necessary or proper to support the Federal Government's piecemeal approach.
krrrh|4 years ago
> to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.
Being interpreted thusly…
> The government argued that if a single exception were made to the Controlled Substances Act, it would become unenforceable in practice. The government also contended that consuming one's locally grown marijuana for medical purposes affects the interstate market of marijuana and the federal government may thus regulate and prohibit such consumption.
> That argument stems from the landmark New Deal case Wickard v. Filburn, which held that the government may regulate personal cultivation and consumption of crops because of the aggregate effect of individual consumption on the government's legitimate statutory framework governing the interstate wheat market.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
Aerroon|4 years ago
Filburn grew his own crops on his own land to feed his own animals. The government fined him under interstate commerce laws for growing too much wheat.
>The Court decided that Filburn's wheat-growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for animal feed on the open market, which is traded nationally, is thus interstate, and is therefore within the scope of the Commerce Clause.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
krrrh|4 years ago
> If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined", while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite."
It’s worth adding that in addition to Justice Thomas, O’Conner and Rheinquist dissented on Raich and just a month ago Thomas noted how untenable the majority’s decision has become with regards to current law and practice around cannabis. The court was motivated to find a way to justify the federal governments blanket prohibition and produced bad law, and if the same case had come before them in 2021 it could very well have been decided differently, arguably under equal treatment provisions.
> Whatever the merits of Raich when it was decided, federal policies of the past 16 years have greatly undermined its reasoning. Once comprehensive, the Federal Government's current approach is a half-in, half-out regime that simultaneously tolerates and forbids local use of marijuana. This contradictory and unstable state of affairs strains basic principles of federalism and conceals traps for the unwary.
> …
> Yet, as petitioners recently discovered, legality under state law and the absence of federal criminal enforcement do not ensure equal treatment.
> …
> I could go on. Suffice it to say, the Federal Government's current approach to marijuana bears little resemblance to the watertight nationwide prohibition that a closely divided Court found necessary to justify the Government's blanket prohibition in Raich. If the Government is now content to allow States to act "as laboratories" "'and try novel social and economic experiments,'" Raich, 545 U. S., at 42 (O'Connor, J., dissenting), then it might no longer have authority to intrude on "[t]he States' core police powers . . . to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens." Ibid. A prohibition on intrastate use or cultivation of marijuana may no longer be necessary or proper to support the Federal Government's piecemeal approach.
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/06/28/justice-thomas-decries-...