Not so fast: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/30/politics/30scotus.html?oref=login&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1101791192-0Sq8kqOdo1GQznLKAorYbw"?>States' Rights Defense Falters...</a>
I love how Scalia basically says, "I disagree with Wickard, however, I'll base my nay vote in this case on it."
Can someone explain to me how an illicit, black market product grown for personal use, not-for-sale intra- or inter-state can be adjudicated as an economic activity?
It's not legal for you to profit from it, so how does the Court decide they can make a ruling on this item on grounds that it's a marketable product?
I love how Scalia basically says, "I disagree with Wickard, however, I'll base my nay vote in this case on it."
Can someone explain to me how an illicit, black market product grown for personal use, not-for-sale intra- or inter-state can be adjudicated as an economic activity?
It's not legal for you to profit from it, so how does the Court decide they can make a ruling on this item on grounds that it's a marketable product?