Justice Thomas

Senator Reid may find him lacking, but Radley Balko says "He's easily the most principled and consistent defender of federalism on the court."

Sadly, that's becoming a lower bar all the time. Balko quotes his dissent on TheAgitator.com:

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.
[...]
Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that "commerce" included the mere possession of a good or some purely personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana.

Props to O'Connor for dissenting -- and what's up with Nino?

Congress may regulate even noneconomic local activity if that regulation is a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce . . .The relevant question is simply whether the means chosen are "reasonably adapted" to the attainment of a legitimate end under the commerce power.

Hat-tip: AlexC's buddy, Instapundit, who sez "The 9th Circuit asked the Supreme Court how serious it was about enumerated powers, and the answer, apparently was not so much. "

Pharmaceuticals Posted by jk at June 6, 2005 3:51 PM