©THE BILL OF RIGHTS INSTITUTE FEDERALISM AND THE CONSTITUTION Today’s federal government derives the derives government federal Today’s three from of its authority lion’s share Commerce the Constitution: the of clauses the NecessaryClause, Clause, and Proper The interpretation Spending Clause. the and of each has been much debated. The Commerce Clause the Congress gives Clause The Commerce …. among “Commerce regulate to power with foreign as well as states,” several the was While there tribes. Indian and nations interpretation its over disagreement some common most the era, Founding the during Clause the that time was at that view regulate to authority the Congress gave , the Supreme Court interpreted the Clause broadly enough to allow allow to enough broadly Clause the CourtSupreme , the interpreted by Ilya Somin, Associate Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law of School University Mason George of Law, Professor Associate Somin, Ilya by point a major has been the Constitution under power government of federal The scope Founding the 1790s, as the As early beginning since the Republic. the of of controversy had Congress whether over themselves among debate in engaged a vehement Fathers startthe bank.national a establish This was to argument authority longstanding a the of political by promoted best are prosperity and freedom that argue who those between to is needed a powerful that government central who believe those and decentralization interest. national the undermining from governments state prevent and progress ensure The debate over the scope of federal power is often a considered described appropriately more be it may But rights.” “states’ and authority national as a conflict between conflictover theextent of congressional authority under the Constitution, regardless of whether the states benefit from restrictions onfederal power or not. Asare authority Courtlimits decision, federal on unanimous in a recent out has pointed the Supreme state of authority as the as well individual” the of freedom “the protect to intended governments. state Moreover, governments often support extensions of federal power, themselves. the states to resources that transfer spending programs especially federal of case services.and in goods trade and 1824 famous In the movement interstate Ogden Gibbons v. Marshall’sJohn Chief Justice opinion routes. steamboat interstate regulate to Congress which “commerce any regulate “plenary” Congress to gives Clause that the power noted the under power federal that emphasized But he also than one.” states more concerns Clause does not extend to many types of economic legislation. for as laws as well description, every of laws health laws, quarantine laws, nspection The latter include “[i] have sortsthese Although “may a State.” of laws of commerce internal the regulating FEDERALISM AND THE AND FEDERALISM CONSTITUTION INTRODUCTORY ESSAYINTRODUCTORY The most common view of The most common view of the Commerce Clause during the Founding era was that the Clause gave Congress the authority to regulate interstate movement and trade in goods and services. Waiting for relief checks. Calipatria, California. Image Calipatria, California. relief checks. for Waiting courtesy Library of Congress Prints and Photographs (LC-USF34-016123-C). Division a remote and considerable influence on commerce,” they are not themselves of within scope come the did not and therefore trade, of interstate regulations Clause. the Commerce Court Supreme the centuries, twentieth early and continued nineteenth In the denied It Clause. Commerce the of interpretation narrow a relatively enforce to manufacturing, and as agriculture such activities regulate to power the Congress interstate themselves not were but trade, interstate on impact an which had commerce. Courtthe Critics of be should Clause Commerce the that argued increasingly economic of various regulation permit federal to in order broadly, more interpreted The economy. integrated in a modern, be essential to believed they activities that the that believed criticisms. Many these reinforced Depression Great crisis of the economy. the of regulation federal insufficient of because arisen had Depression economic new of range wide a enact to began Congress 1930s, early In the the limits Court’s of the jurisprudence. Clause Commerce tested that regulations with the deal to needed were they that claimed laws new the of Defenders not should legal categories antiquated crisis, allegedly and that economic it, modern put famously D. Roosevelt Franklin President As way. in their stand definition “horse-and-buggy a by constrained be not should legislation economic commerce.” of interstate At first, the Supreme its In Courtlaws. new the of many down struck decision in Schechter unanimous States United Poultryv. Corp. the Courtthe (1935), invalidated The Act. Recovery Industrial National sweeping most the NIRA – probably in American regulation economic historycartel-established - had over controls price and wage like nonagricultural entire the almost It States. United of the economy theoryon the based was – since economists modern most by rejected – caused was Depression the that had that “overproduction” by that and low, too prices driven federal if the return would prosperity producer increase could government The Court’s of the NIRA and rejection a higher level. raising prices to income by political confrontation a major to led laws Deal New prominent other several judiciaryhand and the on one and Congress the president between on the other. CourtSupreme the most to its opposition abandoned largely however, By 1937, broadly. more Clause the Commerce interpret and began to measures Deal New political by caused was time” in “switch this which to extent the on differ Scholars “pack” plan to Roosevelt’s President by bear on the Courtpressure to brought uphold his policies. to justices willing the Court appointing new by

©THE BILL OF RIGHTS INSTITUTE FEDERALISM AND THE CONSTITUTION ©THE BILL OF RIGHTS INSTITUTE FEDERALISM AND THE CONSTITUTION

United States v. Lopez v. States United raised the price of food at of food price the raised , the Courtthe , concluded Wickard (p. 57). , is addressed in a separate essay in this volume in this volume essay in a separate , is addressed would lead to strong judicial enforcement of limits of judicial enforcement strong to lead would Lopez arguably still left arguably Raich authority possibility the that Congress’ open , many observers believed that there were no longer any meaningful any no longer were there that observers believed , many Wickard that Congress could use the Commerce Clause to restrict the amount of wheat of amount the restrict to Clause Commerce the use could Congress that crossed never in question wheat the where in a case even can grow, farmers that Court,the to Congress According market. in any sold never was and lines state on an impact had so doing because production wheat such restrict could wheat own her his or grow to forbidden farmer A in wheat. commerce interstate artificiallyBy commerce. interstate in wheat additional purchase to likely more is and its price, increase to hoped Congress wheat, of production the restricting the country. farmers around of sagging profits raise the thereby constitutional of stakes real-world the illuminate cases Depression-era The that argued laws Deal New challenged the of Defenders issues. federalism crisis that left an economic alleviating in poverty millions to essential were they actually legislation new the of much that argued Opponents unemployed. and made the crisis worse. For example, NIRA raised prices and may have increased in Wickard at issue law wheat the while unemployment, a near possession banning gun law Courtthe (1995), federal a down struck Commerce the by authorized not was that this law It reasoned zone. school In United activity.” kind of “economic any regulate it did not because Clause a law Morrison (2000), Courtthe invalidate to reasoning same the used v. States in federal attackers their sue to violence victims of gender-motivated allowing court. that who hoped Those In 1942, a Court by then largely composed of Roosevelt appointees, decided decided appointees, Court a Roosevelt of composed largely then 1942, In by Deal New on the seal the set that ruling Filburn, a sweeping v. Wickard In doctrine. Clause Commerce of transformation this To meet. making ends trouble having already were workers many when a time federal in increases Deal-era New the whether debate to continue specialists day, than harm. benefit more created power After fifty years passed Over Clause. Commerce the under powers Congress’ on limits before the next Supreme Court decision striking down a federal law because it exceeded congressional authority under the Clause. In on federal power were dealt a major setback by the Court’sthe by setback major a dealt 2005 in decision were power federal on Courtthe case, . In that Raich allowed Clause Commerce the that ruled Gonzales v. if the even marijuana medical of possession and growth the forbid to Congress never had enterprise, commercial a by produced not was in question marijuana within a single even market in been sold any not lines, and had state crossed be can production and possession marijuana that reasoned majority The state. regulated because it is an “economic activity,” which it defined as any activity commodities.” of consumption and distribution, production, “the the involving definition. outside this broad activities fall if any Few However, might not extend far enough to cover regulations that were not targeted at any in activities that engage individual citizens to forced instead all, but activity at in the stake at main issue the This was avoided. otherwise have would they That Court the by decided 2012. in June mandate insurance individual health Sebelius important NFIB v. case, and the Health Care Case Federalism . McCulloch McCulloch v. v. McCulloch United States v. v. States United case, the Court was again unclear in its interpretation Court the case, in its interpretation again unclear was Comstock (2010) where it emphasized that any measure qualifies as “necessary” as qualifies measure any that emphasized it where (2010) MarylandMarshall, Chief Justice Court the opinion by . In a famous unanimously interpretation Bank and endorsed the of constitutionality Hamilton’s the upheld his that reasoning Marshall noted time, however, same the At of “necessary.” he wrote, The Clause, assertions power. for a blank check federal of not was “within are the that ends “legitimate” as promote laws only such authorized which are appropriate, which are “means and use constitution,” the of scope letter with the consist but prohibited, not which are end, that to plainly adapted and spirit of the constitution.” ’s McCulloch broad definition of “necessary” did not win universal acceptance. accept did not Jackson Andrew as President such power federal Critics of bill a of his veto accompanying message Marshall’s In an 1832 reasoning. reauthorizing the Bank, with Jackson made clear his disagreements Court the endorsed Marshall has repeatedly this continuing controversy, Despite in recently most “necessary,” of definition broad Hamilton’s and Comstock other some of implementation the to related” if it is “rationally Clause the under power. federal “proper.” word the of The Courtin its interpretation clear less far has been imposed propriety that all agreed Founders other and Madison, Hamilton, is “necessary”that measure A necessity. of those from separate restrictions The “proper.” it is not that grounds the on unconstitutional might still be declared requirements. distinct two are these that cases Courtin several ruled also has “proper.” of definition complete a approaching anything provided never has it But In the recent of “proper,” even as it “necessary.” reiterated its endorsement of a broad definition of The Necessary Clause and Proper Laws all “make to power the Congress The Necessarygives Clause Proper and which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the of the Government in the this Constitution by vested foregoing Powers all other and Powers, to various intended was rather but the power, of grant free-standing a is not It States.” United execution” into “carry to needed laws enact to power the Congress give parts other by the Constitution. of government the federal to granted powers two meet must it by authorized law a that suggests Clause the of wording The separate requirements: it must be “necessary” to the execution of some power Sincethe 1790s, at least “proper.” and also government, federal the to granted republic, early In the terms. two meaning of these the over has raged debate or constitutionality the on focused Clause the of interpretation the over debate lack thereof of the First Bank of the Madison and Thomas JeffersonJames its that argued United in 1790, proposed States. When the Bank was first Necessary the because Clause by authorized not and Proper was establishment as measures such only include to “necessary” interpreted be should word the By contrast, powers. federal of other the implementation to essential truly are Secretary of the Treasury or is “useful” that Alexander law any include to “necessary”that interpreted be should Hamilton defended the Bank, the reach not Bank did the of constitutionality the of issue The “convenient.” arguing of the case decided justices when the CourtSupreme until 1819,

©THE BILL OF RIGHTS INSTITUTE FEDERALISM AND THE CONSTITUTION ©THE BILL OF RIGHTS INSTITUTE FEDERALISM AND THE CONSTITUTION

1 James Madison argued Madison argued James power to spend that the general welfare for the only gave Congress to spend the authority purpose money for the of implementing Congress’ other powers. enumerated NFIB . The Clause is often also referred to as the Tax Clause or the Taxing and Spending Clause. Clause or the Taxing as the Tax to The Clause is often also referred

The Clause seems to give Congress the authority to raise and spend tax revenue revenue tax spend and raise to authority the Congress give to seems Clause The debts the paying defense, common the for providing purposes: distinct three for meaning The welfare.” “general the promoting and government, federal the of the been – has Clause” – oftenphrase last this Welfare of “General the called spend to power the that argued Madison James controversy. of repeated cause for money spend to authority the Congress gave only welfare general the for By contrast, powers. enumerated other Congress’ of implementing purpose the separate a created Clause Welfare General the that claimed Hamilton Alexander he did not However, purposes. general for money spend to and distinct power it Rather, it liked. purpose any for money spend could Congress that contend nineteenth the During local.” not “general, are that purposes for so do only could the resolved clearly CourtSupreme the centuries, twentieth early and never courts,the Outside welfare.” “general meaning of the however, over dispute Cleveland Grover Buchanan, and James Madison, as James such presidents projects construction local for money spending bills allocated that federal vetoed on the grounds that such expenditures were not for the “general welfare,” but local interests. merely benefited instead spending programs of new a wide range enacted Congress 1930s, During the tryingof purpose the of effects the combat to for states the to money transferring challenges constitutional addressing cases of In a series Depression. Great the to these programs, the Court first went then and one, narrow Madison’s to in preference welfare” “general of endorsed Hamilton’s broad interpretation welfare” “general the that – concluding further envisioned Hamilton than even includes almost any purpose so definedby Congress. This effectively jettisoned a As projects. “local” and “general” spending for between distinction Hamilton’s “porkbarrel” local of variety a for funds allocate to able been has Congress result, projects, such as the notorious “Bridge to Nowhere,” part isolated an in people an of handful a only served that bridge financed federally extremely expensive of Alaska. v. Sebelius v. The Spending Clause Debts the “pay to taxes impose to power the Congress gives Clause Spending The States.” United the of Welfare general and Defence common the for provide and There is considerable disagreement disagreement is considerable There academic among issue the over more the Among commentators. of interpretations widely accepted a “proper” that idea is the term the verythe at be cannot least law give would that rationale a by justified virtuallyCongress authority. unlimited speech, in a 1791 put it As Madison “[w]hatever meaning this clause may that admitted can be none have, discretion an unlimited give would of The interpretation Congress.” to 2012 in the role a key played “proper” case, mandate insurance health 1 , the Court invalidated claims Court, the invalidated NFIB v. Sebelius NFIB v. (1987), the Supreme Court upheld a federal law denying denying CourtSupreme law the federal a upheld (1987), Dole v. South Dakota Although the post-1930s Supreme Court has been unwilling to impose impose Court Supreme to post-1930s the Although unwilling has been enforced it has money, spends which Congress for purposes the on restrictions grown have grants Such governments. state to grants federal on conditions some 25% all state of over encompassing currently 1930s, the since enormously with come governments state to grants all federal spending. Nearly government the money. for qualify to are if they must meet officials conditions that state In raising their a law enact to refused that states to funds highway 5% federal of to related was claimed government federal the (a measure 21 to drinking age The Courtmeasures Spending that Clause safety). ruled highway promoting 1) promote must They constitutional. be to in order requirements four meet must 3) and be clear interest, a federal to 2) be “related” welfare,” the “general unambiguous, and 4) not violate any other part in of Congress Courtthe because in practice little means to requirement defers the Constitution. The first been has always second the welfare”; “general the deciding what promotes fourththe and bill – a spending redundant is largely applied very deferentially; even partinvalidated be unrelated some would Constitution the of violated that requirement the CourtSupreme the enforced strongly has it. However, without be clear, must governments state to grants federal to attached conditions that vague. excessively conditions that are enforce refused to and has sometimes if it is so be unconstitutional may a spending condition that Dole also noted onerous as to be “coercive.” Unfortunately, the Court So far, until 2012. decisions did in later so do did not and phrase, this by meant not explain what it spending conditions on this basis. very few struck down courtslower have because is important federalism American of future the coercion of The issue to of much for government federal the on dependent increasingly are states force to leverage as grants federal use to Congress This enables funding. their of the national majority. the views to conform to dissenting states addressing decision in its The Court“coercion” meaning of the clarify began to Act Care Affordable the to attached spending conditions of constitutionality the stripped have would that Act the of The Court a provision down struck 2010. of unless poor) the for care health (which fund funds Medicaid their all of states they agree to greatly expand program eligibility to millions of additional people, line. Since Medicaid poverty the 33% above to up with incomes including those on dependent heavily become have states most in 1965, established was Medicaid funding. In its closely-dividedin decision that the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate provision is constitutional provision mandate individual Act’s Care Affordable the that Necessarythe and Clause, upheld but Clause, Commerce the under Proper and the requirement that people buy health care insurance under the Tax Clause. the surrounding Court’sContinued controversy decision in this case reflects the Supreme the both for issue a divisive remains federalism constitutional that fact Court as a whole. and American society

©THE BILL OF RIGHTS INSTITUTE FEDERALISM AND THE CONSTITUTION GONZALES V. RAICH (2005)

Case Background DIRECTIONS The Commerce Clause of the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate “Commerce … among the several states.” During the early Read the Case years of the nation, this was understood to mean that the federal Background and government had the authority to regulate interstate movement and FEDERALISM AND THE CONSTITUTION Key Question. trade in goods and services. The main purpose in the eyes of the Then analyze the Framers was to enable Congress to override protectionist trade Documents provided. barriers set by state governments. In the famous 1824 case of Finally, answer the Gibbons v. Ogden, Chief Justice John Marshall affirmed Congress’ Key Question in a right to regulate “commerce which concerns more states than well-organized essay one” but noted that Congress did not have the right to regulate the that incorporates internal commerce of a state. your interpretations of the Documents The meaning of the Commerce Clause has been debated throughout as well as your own our history. Critics of several pieces of New Deal legislation claimed knowledge of history. that the laws relied on an overly-broad interpretation of the Clause. In the first case, Schechter Poultry Corp. v. US (1935), the Court held that the federal government may only regulate the “direct” effects of interstate commerce, thus striking down Section 3 of the National Industrial Recovery Act. Seven years later, another Court CONSTITUTIONAL (with members more sympathetic to the Roosevelt administration) PRINCIPLES held that Congress could regulate any type of economic activity, which might have a substantial impact on interstate commerce. Limited government This decision upheld the Agricultural Adjustment Act. For more Inalienable rights than the next fifty years, the Supreme Court did not act to restrict Congress’ power to regulate a wide variety of activities. In the 1990’s, the Supreme Court took a more limited view of the application of the Commerce Clause with cases like U.S. v. Lopez and U.S. v. Morrison. Court observers wondered if that trend would continue when a 2005 case prompted a re-evaluation of federal regulatory powers. California resident Diane Monson was surprised when the federal Drug Enforcement Agency seized six marijuana plants growing in her backyard. She and her co-defendant, Angel Raich, suffered from a variety of serious medical conditions and used marijuana to relieve symptoms. The use of the drug was legal under California law. However, under a federal law-the Controlled Substances Act (CSA)--marijuana was considered illegal contraband. Raich and Monson challenged the CSA, contending that their homegrown marijuana had no impact on interstate commerce and therefore its seizure was a violation of the Commerce Clause. Their case, Gonzales v. Raich (2005), placed the issue of federal regulatory powers squarely before the Court. ©THE BILL OF RIGHTS INSTITUTE GONZALES V. RAICH wer does this section of the Constitution give Congress? does this section of the Constitution give wer y are New York laws regulating navigation by boats licensed by the boats licensed by by regulating navigation laws York y are New y did the Founders give Congress the power to regulate commerce regulate to Congress the power give y did the Founders e some examples of “commercial intercourse” between states. of “commercial intercourse” between e some examples estate this passage in your own words. own estate this passage in your Wh Giv the US Constitution? “repugnant” to government States United R What po Wh among the States?

2. 1. 2. 1. 1. DOCUMENT C DOCUMENT B DOCUMENT A DOCUMENT Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), Unanimous Opinion Gibbons v. Commerce, is undoubtedly, traffic,but it is something more—it is intercourse. It parts and nations, between nations, of intercourse commercial the describes carrying for prescribing rules that on by is regulated and in all its branches, intercourse.… a special concurrence stating: William Johnson wrote Justice vessels, as prohibits York of New of the state laws several of the So much waters the navigating from States, United the of laws the to according licensed of the state of New York, by means of fire or steam,Constitution and void is repugnantto the said United States Constitution, States United Article VI, Section 2 (1787) This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States the under made, be which shall or made, which Treaties all Pursuanceand thereof; shall be made in Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the or Constitution Thing in the any thereby, bound be shall State in every Judges Contrary the to notwithstanding. State of any Laws United States Constitution, States United Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 (1787) and nations, with foreign commerce regulate “to power the have shall Congress and with the Indian Tribes.” States, among the several Schechter Schechter decision, Document ”? , of the fact that both the , of the fact ed by Congress? ed by y would happen if the Commerce Clause y would standing of congressional power in this passage standing of congressional power decision were unanimous? decision were Wickard y not be regulated? (1935), Unanimous Opinion ou think this decision is considered by many scholars many be to ou think this decision is considered by y be regulated by the federal government? the federal by y be regulated decision and the D? How does the under How differ from the understanding in the What is the significance, if any What activities may be regulat What activities may Which ma What does the Court sa According to this opinion, which to activities of intrastateAccording commerce ma were understood to grant Congress the power to regulate “all regulate to understood Congress the power grant were to an indirect to have and transactions which could be said enterprises effect upon interstate commerce Why do y Why the foundation of modern Commerce Clause authority? the foundation 3. 4. 3. 1. 2. 2. 1. DOCUMENT E DOCUMENT D DOCUMENT Wickard v. Filburn (1942), Unanimous Opinion v. Wickard commerce, as regarded be not it may though and local, be if [an] activity even But it exerts if Congress by [regulated] reached be nature, its still, whatever it may of this irrespective and commerce, interstate on effect economic substantial a whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined“direct” or “indirect.” as Schechter v U.S. intrastate go in controlling may government federal the far how In determining transactions [transactions within one state] upon the ground that they ‘affect’ necessary a is there distinction commerce, well-established and interstate intrastate of the effect But where … effects and indirect direct between transactions such indirect, is merely commerce interstate upon transactions construed were clause commerce If the power. state within of remain the domain an indirect have be said to which could and transactions all enterprises reach to practically embrace would authority federal the commerce, interstate upon effect the people… all the activities of

©THE BILL OF RIGHTS INSTITUTE GONZALES V. RAICH ©THE BILL OF RIGHTS INSTITUTE GONZALES V. RAICH Schechter? ard? Wick standing of the Commerce Clause agree or disagree t’s Majority Opinion agree or disagree with your opinion with your t’s Majority Opinion agree or disagree (1995), Majority Opinion (1995), Majority our judgment, is carrying a school a gun into an economic activity with the understanding in Document D: reflected In Document E: In y Congress under the Commerce Clause? by that can be regulated Did the Cour about carrying guns as an economic activity? Does this under

4. 2. 3. 1. DOCUMENT F DOCUMENT Lopez U.S. v. Under the presents theories … that the any it Government is todifficult perceive or enforcement as criminal law such in areas even power, limitation on federal to were Thus, if we sovereign. been have historically States where education accept the Government’s arguments [in support of the Gun-Free School Zones an individual that activity by any posit to hard-pressed are we of 1990] Act regulate…. to power Congress is without zone is of a gun in an economic school in a local The possession no sense sortany affect substantially of elsewhere, repetition might, through activity that is there school; local a at student local a was Respondent commerce. interstate is no and there commerce, in interstate moved he had recently that no indication interstate to tie concrete any have firearm the of possession his that requirement commerce. To uphold the Government’s contentions here, we have to pile inference upon authority congressional convert to bid fair would that in a manner inference sortthe of by power police retained general a to Clause Commerce the under down long steps taken have prior cases of our some Admittedly, the States. language broad The action. congressional to deference giving great road, that we but expansion, additional possibility of the suggested has opinions in these that conclude to us require would so do To further. any proceed to here decline the Constitution’s enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not is truly what between distinction a will be never there that and enumerated, do. to are unwilling we national and what is truly local. This for finding tice explain that the Gun-Free School Zones Act did School Zones Act that the Gun-Free tice explain o this Dissenting Opinion, what is the questiono this Dissenting Opinion, what is that the According t According school guns in that prohibited Court regarding the law answer should zones? does this Jus How the scope of the Commerce Clause? not expand 2. 1. DOCUMENT G DOCUMENT a significant (or substantial) connection between gun-related schooland violence interstate commerce…. Numerous reports and studies — generated both inside and outside government — make clear that Congress could reasonably Congress And, exclusive. mutually are learning and guns that … thought have unable -- teachers problem educational a substantial found have therefore could to teach, students unable to learn — and and scope of that problem.… the size to substantially contribute concluded that guns near schools taken facts, economic the and facts, the educational facts, The violence-related conclusion rational.... this make together, Act Zones School Gun-Free [the us particularthe that [A] holding before statute of [the scope the expand not would power within commerce the falls of 1990] changing to law preexisting apply would it simply Rather, Clause. Commerce] economic circumstances. It would recognize that, in today’s economic gun-related violence world, near the classroom makes a significant differenceto our as our social, wellbeing.… economic, as well Congress that recognize than simply more no do this legislation would Upholding had a “rational basis” for finding a significant connectionbetween and foreign gunsthe interstate education) on their effect and (through schools near in or the of judgment the reverse I would reasons, these For threaten. they commerce I dissent. Court of Appeals. Respectfully, (1995), Dissenting Opinion Lopez (1995), Dissenting U.S. v. a rational basis had have could Congress ask whether …[W]e must

©THE BILL OF RIGHTS INSTITUTE GONZALES V. RAICH ©THE BILL OF RIGHTS INSTITUTE GONZALES V. RAICH [an appeal against the Violence the [an appeal against estate this excerpt in your own words words own in your estate this excerpt R

1. DOCUMENT H DOCUMENT is clear. Gender-motivated crimes of violence are of violence crimes Gender-motivated is clear. of 1994] Act Women Against not, in any sense of the phrase, economic activity activity intrastate of regulation Clause … Commerce upheld historyhave cases our thus far in our Nation’s of enumeration …With is in activity careful its that economic nature. only where Federal the to granted not all powers that statement explicit and powers federal as interpreted be realistically reserved, are cannot Constitution the Government regulate. license to an unlimited Government granting the Federal (2000), Majority Opinion (2000), Majority Morrison U.S. v. case the present of resolution The proper est in ou agree , Wickard we had no difficulty 2005) o this opinion, should Congress have the right to regulate right to the o this opinion, should Congress have this case. these activities? Opinion applied the “rational basis” t the Majority Explain how In light of the decisions in the previous documents, do y In light of the decisions in the previous What types of goods and services are sometimes produced at home? t According with the Majority Opinion in this 6-3 case that the question of local production and consumption of regulate to Congressional power law? a product is “well-settled” is a valid exercise of federal power, even as even power, federal of exercise is a valid Act] Substances [Controlled , respondents are cultivating, for home consumption, a fungible a fungible consumption, home for cultivating, are , respondents Wickard 3. 2. 1. DOCUMENT I DOCUMENT OPINION MAJORITY Gonzales v. Raich ( Gonzales v. …The case is made difficult by contrary, the to finding respondents’ congressional a despite because, strongharm irreparable suffer arguments that they will us, before question The purposes. therapeutic valid have does marijuana circumstances; these in statute the enforce it is wise to whether is not however, medicinal for markets interstate regulate to power Congress’ whether is it rather, with supplied are that portionsthe encompasses substances markets those of The answer. our controls law Well-settled locally. and consumed produced drugs CSA case.… of this facts the troubling applied to and Wickard this case The similarities between are striking. Like the farmer in is an which there for exchanged] or traded be can that [a good commodity …In market. albeit illegal, interstate established, concluding that Congress had a rational basis for believing that, when viewed viewed when that, believing basis for rational a had Congress that concluding regulatory the outside wheat home-consumed scheme leaving aggregate, in the would have a substantial influence on price and market conditions. Here home-consumed too, leaving that concluding basis for a rational had Congress price and market similarly affect would control federal outside marijuana commerce Congress’ within squarely is regulation the cases, both …In conditions. be consumption, home for meant commodity the of production because power in the demand on supply and effect has a substantial marijuana, or it wheat that commodity.… for national market In assessing the scope of Congress’ authority under the Commerce Clause, we whether determine not need We one. us is a modest before task that the stress respondents’ activities, taken in the aggregate, substantially affect so concluding. for a “rational basis” exists but only whether in fact, interstate commerce

©THE BILL OF RIGHTS INSTITUTE GONZALES V. RAICH ©THE BILL OF RIGHTS INSTITUTE GONZALES V. RAICH toonist agree with the argument in Document I or the ccording to the dissent, if the federal government has the power to to has the power government the federal the dissent, if ccording to regulate medical marijuana under the Commerce Clause, what limits marijuana under the Commerce medical regulate power? federal are there to A argument in Document J? Does the car

1. 1. DOCUMENT K DOCUMENT J DOCUMENT ” Cartoon Raich (2005) “Gonzales v. (2005), Dissenting Opinion Raich (2005), Dissenting Gonzales v. never has that marijuana use Raich Angel and Monson Diane Respondents no had has that and lines, state crossed never has that sold, or bought been can If Congress marijuana. for market national the on effect demonstrable anything— virtually regulate can it then Clause, Commerce the under this regulate powers. and enumerated of limited one is no longer Government Federal and the h case, how many states medical many permitted h case, how ou account for the difference? ou account for er the decision, how many states medical marijuana? many permitted er the decision, how marijuana? How do y How In 2005, before the Raic In 2005, before Aft 2005 2013 NOTE: NOTE: As of 2013, Colorado and Washington had legalized non-medical marijuana as well. 2. 1. 3. DOCUMENT L DOCUMENT Maps of States With Legalized Medical Marijuana Maps of States

©THE BILL OF RIGHTS INSTITUTE GONZALES V. RAICH