The End of the Federalism Revolution . . .

THE Supreme Court’s decision in the medical-marijuana case is being taken as

the end of the “federalism revolution” that began under Chief Justice Rehnquist. The Court held that the feds could outlaw the medicinal use of marijuana, whatever California’s government (and voters) preferred. Six justices of the Court ruled that the feds could prohibit medical marijuana because the Constitution gave Congress the power to regulate interstate com- merce. Justice Clarence Thomas, one of the three dissenters, said that if Congress could use the Commerce Clause to regulate sick people’s personal use of marijuana, “then it can regulate virtually anything—and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.”

About the Author

Ramesh Ponnuru

Ramesh Ponnuru is the editor of National Review, a columnist for the Washington Post, and a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Featured Tags

THE Supreme Court’s decision in the medical-marijuana case is being taken as

the end of the “federalism revolution” that began under Chief Justice Rehnquist. The Court held that the feds could outlaw the medicinal use of marijuana, whatever California’s government (and voters) preferred. Six justices of the Court ruled that the feds could prohibit medical marijuana because the Constitution gave Congress the power to regulate interstate com- merce. Justice Clarence Thomas, one of the three dissenters, said that if Congress could use the Commerce Clause to regulate sick people’s personal use of marijuana, “then it can regulate virtually anything—and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.”