Introducing
Your new presentation assistant.
Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.
Trending searches
Respondents Angel Raich and Diane Monson are California residents who suffer from serious medical conditions and that marijuana is the only drug available that provides effective treatment. So both of them have been using marijuana as a medication for several years pursuant to their doctors’ recommendation, and both rely heavily on cannabis to function on a daily basis. Despite receiving approval from California state officials, federal agents seized and destroyed Raich’s marijuana plants.
The decision of the court of appeals is reversed.
Group 9
2. Congress had a rational basis for concluding that leaving home-consumed marijuana outside federal control would similarly affect price and market conditions.
May Congress regulate the use and production of homegrown marijuana?
Respondent's attempt to rely on Lopez and Morrison is incorrect, because the activities regulated by the CSA are quintessentially economic, since they are related to production.
Therefore, the CSA is a valid exercise of Congress’s Commerce Clause power because Congress acted rationally in determining growing marijuana was an economic activity with a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
Yes, Congress has the power to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana under the power of the Commerce Clause.
1. Wickard v. Filburn firmly establishes Congress' power to regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic "class of activities" that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
Congress’s power to regulate activities having a “substantial effect” on interstate commerce is derived from the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause.
Gonzales v. Raich established Congressional power to regulate homegrown medical marijuana in a state where medical marijuana is legal under a state statute.