We've never supported drug legalization, even in its "medical marijuana" drag. Still, we can't help but feel uneasy about the Supreme Court's 6-3 decision Monday in Gonzales v. Raich, which held that the federal government can trump state laws permitting the possession and cultivation of small quantities of cannabis for purely personal use.
As Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his dissent: "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." By "enumerated powers," Justice Thomas means the idea that the federal government can undertake only such activities as the Constitution explicitly permits.
Hence the 10th Amendment, which reserves those powers not listed -- such as criminal law enforcement -- to the states. President James Madison, the Constitution's primary author, famously vetoed a highway bill in 1817: "The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers..."
How things have changed -- largely as a result of New Deal-era jurisprudence holding that the federal government's Constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce could be used to justify all sorts of previously unimagined powers. This can be a good thing, when what we are truly talking about is interstate commerce.
But by the 1990s federal law making had grown so unhinged from any plausible Commerce Clause justification that it provoked a minor Supreme Court backlash. In 1995 in United States v. Lopez, the Court struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act on the grounds that gun possession near a school was not an economic activity. And in United States v. Morrison, the Court struck down portions of the Violence Against Women Act on similar grounds.
Raich would appear to end the Lopez line of reasoning, since the two decisions don't seem reconcilable. If, as Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his majority concurrence, non-economic activities can be regulated so long as they are part of a "comprehensive scheme of regulation," there would appear to be no federal power the Commerce Clause couldn't theoretically justify.
And let no one be deluded that the democratic preference of America's largest state isn't being trampled here. We didn't support the California medical marijuana ballot initiative at issue in Raich. But a clear majority of Californians did. Just because an issue is "important" doesn't mean it should be a matter for federal law. Almost all homicide is regulated at the state level, and contentious issues like abortion rights are best handled not by judicial fiat but by democratic compromises in the 50 states. Who knows what further intrusions into the rights of local polities the Raich decision may one day be used to justify?
I'll say liberal 
