Gonzales v. Raich

“So now what you're saying is, in a Commerce Clause case, what we're supposed to do is to start to look at the federal scheme and the state scheme and see, comparing the federal scheme and the state scheme, whether, given the state scheme, the federal scheme is really necessary to include this.” (Stephen G. Breyer)

This Supreme Court Argument was concerned with rather the commerciality of marijuana is economic or non-economic.  The government argues that there needs to be federal oversight of medicinal marijuana in order to prevent the interstate interchanging of marijuana, a schedule 1 substance, in presumed inability of a State, in this case California, inability to regulate such substance.

I chose the above paragraph because I believe it presents an articulate example of how to appropriately treat the powers of the state versus the State.  In many instances, there is recognition that each state has a right and responsibility to regulate its citizens, with exceptions given to activities and/or events that will affect the State-at-large.  I strongly believe that it is important that each state maintains it autonomy, where possible, and not defer to the State, except in rare instances that it becomes necessary.