In some ways he's honored it more than even Scalia. Take Gonzalez vs. Raich: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZS.html
The notion that the federal government can regulate my growing of weed on my property for my consumption is just as insane to me as the federal government's right to regulate my growing of corn on my property for my consumption. That's not what the commerce nor the necessary and proper clause say. They say t hat congress can regulate interstate commerce. There is nothing interstate about my consumption of things I grow on my property. The Federal Government has no broad police power. They don't have a broad police power to regulate any purely intrastate behavior, even consumption of drugs and alcohol short of a constitutional amendment saying they can. And only the states can pass legislation to ban consumption of substances or other behaviors except where specifically denied that right like by the second amendment.
Wickard v. Filburn is just flat wrongly decided. Only Thomas really had the balls to say so.
In some ways he's honored it more than even Scalia. Take Gonzalez vs. Raich: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZS.html
The notion that the federal government can regulate my growing of weed on my property for my consumption is just as insane to me as the federal government's right to regulate my growing of corn on my property for my consumption. That's not what the commerce nor the necessary and proper clause say. They say t hat congress can regulate interstate commerce. There is nothing interstate about my consumption of things I grow on my property. The Federal Government has no broad police power. They don't have a broad police power to regulate any purely interstate behavior, even consumption of drugs and alcohol short of a constitutional amendment saying they can. And only the states can pass legislation to ban consumption of substances or other behaviors except where specifically denied that right like by the second amendment.
Wickard v. Filburn is just flat wrongly decided. Only Thomas really had the balls to say so.
In some ways he's honored it more than even Scalia. Take Gonzalez vs. Raich: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZS.html
The notion that the federal government can regulate my growing of weed on my property for my consumption is just as insane to me as the federal government's right to regulate my growing of corn on my property for my consumption. Wickard v. Filburn is just flat wrongly decided. Only Thomas really had the balls to say so.