Seriously, lets discuss the thorn in my side, the Commerce Clause. How they use that clause to justify prohibition of marijuana?

George Washington smoked cannabis, he was a hemp farmer, all use to be legalized before the 30's.

It's clear: [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause

Chief Justice John Marshall ruled in Gibbons v. Ogden that the power to regulate interstate commerce also included the power to regulate interstate navigation: "Commerce, undoubtedly is traffic, but it is something more—it is intercourse ... [A] power to regulate navigation is as expressly granted, as if that term had been added to the word 'commerce' ...

How does that prohibit me from growing cannabis in my home?

Why is prohibiting people from growing cannabis in their backyard for personal use? Where in the commerce clause prohibits that?

Doesn't the clause kind of contradict being able to even have a FREE market? This is America isn't it? Freedom?

Isn't the clause on of the main regulations that is killing jobs? Isn't that some of the "red tape".

Why not cut that and let the economy grow?

End the Fed, end the commerce clause, repeal NAFTA, end the FDA, end the WTO, end the income tax, legalize marijuana, 

just to name a few you sheeple can do for your economy. Wake up!

The commerce clause is the satanists rationale to trying to make cannabis illegal. It's like everybody gives up trying to fight for their GOD GIVEN RIGHT, a plant, made from GOD, because they believe the crap around the commerce clause. Abolish it. It shouldn't even exist, isn't it similar to a NAFTA or an FDA? FDA is going around forcing us to plant seeds from Monsanto, what a joke. Stop bending over.

-

Definition of Commerce:
an interchange of goods or commodities, especially on a large scale between different countries (foreign commerce) or between different parts of the same country (domestic commerce); trade; business.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/commerce

I mean if I can grow grass in my yard for my own use to do whatever, I should be able to grow WEED, weed with THC in it (cannabis) for my OWN personal use, that isn't COMMERCE.

other definitions.

2.
social relations, especially the exchange of views, attitudes, etc.
3.
sexual intercourse. (i'm glad that is OKAY over marijuana use, geez, now i know why we have an OVER population problem. High off pot is better for those not in a relationship than high off sex)
4.
intellectual or spiritual interchange; communion.
5.
(initial capital letter) Also called Commerce Department. Informal. the Department of Commerce.

commerce (ˈkɒmɜːs) 
—n
1. the activity embracing all forms of the purchase and sale of goods and services
2. social relations and exchange, esp of opinions, attitudes, etc

Growing cannabis for your own personal use is NOT an inter-exchange of goods!

And if you freely give it away, it's not trade or a sale, it's called CHARITY.

oh, next the satanists will say, well you got love in return, that's a trade, you people make me sick. I can see clearly how Jesus suffered in the Roman Empire.

Nothing seems to have changed.

The following is a blatant lie, it's fraud.

In contrast to United States v. Lopez , the powers defined in the Commerce Clause have been elastically re-interpreted to cover non-commercial activity not just between but within the states. In 2005, the Supreme Court controversially ruled in Gonzales v. Raich, that the Commerce Clause granted Congress the authority to regulate Cannabis plants grown, processed, and consumed within the state on private property. The court reclassified the plant as a commodity even though it was not sold or exchanged in any transaction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_8:_Powers_of_Congress

That's illegal itself, no where does the definition of commerce even cover that. Again, people need to READ the definition of what commerce is. That was done in 2005, under Bush. That's how messed up our courts are when "the illuminati have their judges in their back pockets" - to quote George Carlin. That should be REPEALED. We're a dictator and we break our own laws. We murder people without sending them to trial, violation of the 5th Amendment. Read all over the news of our government violating 1st-10th amendments, FORGET marijuana, it's happening every day. They need to brought to justice.

We're a dictator.

-

Lopez case also involved a gun in a school zone. How does the affection doctrine operate on that?

Is it against the 2nd Amendment to prohibit carrying a concealed weapon? Again, like cannabis, I just want to be able to possess it on my own property. I can really careless what the rules are at a school. That's my point I'm trying to state. What is wrong with me possessing a firearm (for protection) or cannabis on my own property?

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Abolitionist Lysander Spooner, commenting on bills of rights, stated that the object of all bills of rights is to assert the rights of individuals against the government and that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was in support of the right to resist government oppression, as the only security against the tyranny of government lies in forcible resistance to injustice, for injustice will certainly be executed, unless forcibly resisted.[92] Spooner's theory provided the intellectual foundation for John Brown and other radical abolitionists who believed that arming slaves was not only morally justified, but entirely consistent with the Second Amendment.

Late 20th century commentary

In the latter half of the 20th century there was considerable debate over whether the 2nd Amendment protected an individual right or a collective right.[96] The debate centered on whether the initial clause “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State” declared the Amendment’s only purpose, or if it merely announced a purpose to introduce the main or operative clause “the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

Meaning of "well regulated militia"

The term "regulated" means "disciplined" or "trained".[104] In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "[t]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."[105] Regarding a well regulated militia, Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 29:

(Yep, I value discipline!)

District of Columbia (criminals) v. Heller
Main article: District of Columbia v. Heller
[edit]Judgment
According to the syllabus prepared by the U.S. Supreme Court Reporter of Decisions,[129] in this decision the Supreme Court held:[129][130]
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.[129][130]