Apparently, the Supreme Court has ruled that the feds can continue to prosecute medical marijuana users:

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing the 6-3 decision, said that Congress could change the law to allow medical use of marijuana.

Well, that’s very generous of him.

Under the Constitution, Congress may pass laws regulating a state’s economic activity so long as it involves “interstate commerce” that crosses state borders. The California marijuana in question was homegrown, distributed to patients without charge and without crossing state lines.

Stevens said there are other legal options for patients, “but perhaps even more important than these legal avenues is the democratic process, in which the voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress.”

Yes, to hell with the rights of the states. How in the world can they justify this under the Commerce Clause? It seems to me that if they can justify this, they can justify anything, and federalism is truly dead.

Apparently we need to rein in the Commerce Clause, with an amendment, though I’m not sure what it could say that would be more clear than the clause itself, other than to explicitly say that it must deal with interstate activities. And in today’s political climate, how much support would there be for it, anyway?

I’ll be interested in seeing the opinion, and who was in the minority.

This is quite depressing.

[Update a few minutes later]

Here’s more, from SCOTUSblog:

The Court relied, as the Justice Department had urged in its appeal, upon the Court’s sweeping endorsement of federal Commerce Clause power in the 1942 case of Wickard v. Filburn.

“The case,” Stevens wrote, “comes down to the claim that a locally cultivated product that is used domestically rather than sold on the open market is not subject to federal regulation. Given the Act’s findings and the undisputed magnitude of the commercial market for marijuana, Wickard and its progency foreclose that claim.” The decision came in the case of Gonzalez v. Raich (03-1454).

Wickard v. Filburn was a truly disastrous case for the cause of federalism and liberty. It’s too bad that the court considers precedent so sanctified. There are some decisions that are simply wrong. I can’t imagine that the Founders would have ever conceived the clause being used as an excuse for a nationwide ban on high-octane hemp. Is this precedent the reason why we had to have a constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol nationwide, but that now Congress can federally and enforceably ban natural substances by simply passing a law?

[Update at 10:50]

Justice O’Connor wrote the dissent:

Justice Sandra Day O