Editing Commerce Clause (section)

=== New Federalism and ''Gonzales v. Raich'' ===
The Rehnquist Court's Commerce Clause cases helped establish the doctrine of "[[New Federalism]]."<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last=Levinson|first=Rosalie|date=2011-04-15|title=Will the New Federalism Be the Legacy of the Rehnquist Court?|url=https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr/vol40/iss3/2|journal=Valparaiso University Law Review|volume=40|issue=3|pages=589–598}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Joondeph|first=Bradley|date=2008-01-11|title=Federalism, the Rehnquist Court, and the Modern Republican Party|url=https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/facpubs/183|journal=Faculty Publications}}</ref> The Court's New Federalism doctrine was focused on reining in congressional powers in order to re-strengthen the powers of the individual states which had been weakened during the New Deal era.<ref name=":1" /> Members on the Rehnquist Court theorized that by re-apportioning power back to the states, individual liberty was strengthened.<ref name=":0" /> In contrast, [[Erwin Chemerinsky]] believes that limiting the commerce power as the Rehnquist Court did can only lead to the weakening of individual liberties.<ref name=":0" />

The outer limits of the New Federalism doctrine were delineated by ''[[Gonzales v. Raich]]'' in which Justices [[Antonin Scalia]] and [[Anthony Kennedy]] departed from their previous positions in the ''Lopez'' and ''Morrison'' to uphold a federal law regarding [[marijuana]]. The Court found the federal law valid although the marijuana in question had been grown and consumed within a single state and had never entered interstate commerce. The court held Congress may regulate an intrastate economic good as part of a complete scheme of legislation designed to regulate interstate commerce.

Since the Rehnquist Court, the [[Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Tenth Amendment to the Constitution]] has once again played an integral part in the Court's view of the Commerce Clause. The Tenth Amendment states that the federal government has the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution and that other powers are reserved to the states or to the people. The Commerce Clause is an important source of those powers delegated to Congress and so its interpretation is very important in determining the scope of federal power in controlling innumerable aspects of American life.   The Commerce Clause has been the most broadly-interpreted clause in the Constitution, making way for many laws that some argue, contradict the original intended meaning of the Constitution. Justice Thomas has gone so far as to state in his dissent to ''Gonzales'',

{{Quote|Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything – and the federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD1.html |title=Gonzales v. Raich |publisher=Straylight.law.cornell.edu |access-date=September 6, 2008 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080917040441/http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD1.html |archive-date=September 17, 2008 |df=mdy-all}}</ref>}}